Madras High Court
Puthu Perungalathur Grama vs Sikamani on 16 June, 2021
S.A. No.589 of 2003
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
S.A. No.589 of 2003
and
CMP No.5452 of 2003
Puthu Perungalathur Grama
Seerthirutha Sangam represented
by its President Perumal Nadar .... Appellant
Versus
1. Sikamani
2. Chellappa Naicker .... Respondents
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
code, against the judgment and the decree dated 27.12.2002 made in A.S.
No.74/01 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court at Chingleput
confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2000 made in O.S.
No.2680 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Tambaram.
For Appellant : Mr.T. Girish for Srinath Sridevan
For Respondents : Batta with petition due reg.
JUDGMENT
(Heard through Video Conference)
Heard Mr.T. Girish, learned counsel for the appellant and perused
and examined the materials and evidence available on record.
2. This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A. No.589 of 2003
findings of the Courts below.
3. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit O.S. No.2680 of 1993 on
the file of the District Munsif Court at Tambaram. The respondents are
the defendants 2 and 3 in the said suit. The suit was filed for permanent
injunction restraining the respondents / defendants from tresspassing
into the suit property and interfering with the appellant's / plaintiff's
peaceful possession and enjoyment. The appellant / plaintiff claims that
they are the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and the
defendants are attempting to tresspass into the same. However, it is a
case of the respondents/ defendants 2 and 3 that the appellant / plaintiff
-Sangam is a non existent Association. According to the respondents/
defendants, the plaintiff-Sangam have no right or interest in the suit
schedule property and they are not entitled to file the suit.
4. Before the Trial Court, the appellant / plaintiff filed six
documents, which were marked as A1 to A6 and the respondents /
defendants filed, six documents which were marked as Exs. B1 to B6.
An Advocate Commissioner was also appointed during the pendency of
the suit and the Advocate Commissioner's report as well as the Advocate
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A. No.589 of 2003
Commissioner's sketch were also marked as Exs.C1 and C2. On the side
of the appellant, Perumal Nadar, who claims to be the President of the
appellant / plaintiff Sangam was examined as PW1 before the Trial
Court. On the side of the respondents / defendants, two witnesses were
examined, the 1st respondent / second defendant was examined as DW1
and the 2nd respondent / third defendant was examined as DW2.
5. The Trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellant holding that
the appellant does not have any authority to file the suit and that at the
time of filing of the suit, the appellant / plaintiff was not a registered
Sangam.
6. The Trial Court has also observed that the appellant / plaintiff
cannot try to prove its case through the evidence let in by the respondents
/ defendants and has to stand on its own legs for the purpose of
establishing its case. Having failed to discharge its burden of proving its
case for the purpose of getting the relief as sought for in the suit, the
Trial Court dismissed the suit.
7. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant / plaintiff filed the first
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A. No.589 of 2003
appeal before the Lower Appellate Court in A.S. No.74 of 2001. The
Lower Appellate Court by its judgment and decree dated 27.12.2002 also
confirmed the findings of the Trial Court in its judgment and decree
dated 28.09.2000 passed in O.S. No.2680 of 1993. Aggrieved by the
concurrent findings of the Courts below, this Second Appeal filed in the
year 2003.
8. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal on 22.04.2003,
this Court formulated the following substantial question of law :
"Whether both the Courts below were right in holding
that the suit is not maintainable in law"
9. Both the Courts below based on the materials and evidence
available on record, which cannot be considered to be baseless have
concurrently held that the appellant / plaintiff did not have authority to
file the suit against the respondents / defendants. Admittedly, at the time
of filing of the suit, the appellant / Sangam was not a registered Sangam.
No Board resolution has also been filed entitling Perumal Nadar to file
the suit on behalf of the Sangam. The Trial Court has also taken note of
the aforementioned factors and has come to the right conclusion that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A. No.589 of 2003
appellant / plaintiff has not discharged its burden of proving its case by
filing sufficient documentary evidence in support of their case.
10. The Lower Appellate Court has also rightly appreciated the
materials and evidence available on record as well as the judgment and
decree passed by the Trial Court on 28.09.2000 in OS. No.2680 of 1993
and only thereafter dismissed the appeal on 27.12.2002 in A.S. No.74 of
2012.
11. As seen from the evidence and materials available on record,
there are no debatable issues and there is also no substantial question of
law that requires further consideration. Hence, the substantial question
of law framed by this Court referred to supra on 22.04.2003 is answered
against the appellant / plaintiff. Hence, there is no merit in the Second
Appeal and accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
16.06.2021
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order
vsi2
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A. No.589 of 2003
vsi2
To
1. The Additional Subordinate Court at Chingleput.
2. The District Munsif Court at Tambaram.
S.A. No.589 of 2003
16.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
