K.Krishnan vs K.N.Natarajan
2021 Latest Caselaw 12194 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 12194 Mad
Judgement Date : 22 June, 2021

Madras High Court

K.Krishnan vs K.N.Natarajan on 22 June, 2021

                                                                              S.A.No.185 of 2012

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                               DATED: 22.06.2021

                                                     CORAM

                                   THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

                                               S.A.No.185 of 2012
                                                      and
                                                M.P.No.1 of 2012
                 K.Krishnan,
                 S/o.Kullappan                                             ... Appellant

                                                       Vs.
                 K.N.Natarajan,
                 S/o.Late Narasimma Gounder
                 Power of Attorney Agent of
                 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Petrol Bunk,
                 Chennai Main Road,
                 Krishnagiri Town, Krishnagiri.                       ... Respondent

                        Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the
                 Judgment and Decree dated 22.03.2011 made in A.S.No.30 of 2010 on
                 the file of the Subordinate Court at Krishnagiri confirming the Judgment
                 and Decree dated 19.12.2008 in O.S.No.284 of 2003 on the file of the
                 District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri.

                                   For Appellant    : No appearance
                                   For Respondent   : Mr.S.Sudharshan

                                                    JUDGMENT

The learned counsel for the respondent is present. There is no

representation on behalf of the appellant though the name of the learned

counsel for the appellant is printed in the cause list.

_________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 1 of 4 S.A.No.185 of 2012

2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff for setting

aside the concurrent finding rendered by the First Appellate Court in

A.S.No.30 of 2010 vide its Judgment and Decree dated 22.03.2011.

3. By the aforesaid Judgment and decree dated 22.03.2011 in

A.S.No.30 of 2010, the First Appellate Court had dismissed the aforesaid

appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the Judgment and decree

dated 19.12.2008 in O.S.No.284 of 2003. The said suit was filed by the

respondent/defendant against the appellant/plaintiff to restrain the

appellant/plaintiff from interfering with the peaceful possession of the

suit property which had been sold by the appellant/plaintiff to one

Chandrasekaran vide Ex.A1-Registered Sale Deed dated 16.11.1963.

4. The facts on record also indicates that the appellant/plaintiff

herein had earlier filed O.S.No.38 of 1992 which came to be dismissed

by the trial Court earlier by its Judgment and decree dated 24.12.1996

and against the same, the first appeal was filed by the appellant/plaintiff

in A.S.No.97 of 1997 which came to be dismissed by the Judgment and

decree dated 31.07.1998 in Ex.A3 & A4.

_________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 2 of 4 S.A.No.185 of 2012

5. The property in question originally belonged to the

appellant/plaintiff and his mother and they had sold the property to the

said Chandrasekaran who has leased the property to Hindustan Petroleum

Corporation Limited and the appellant/plaintiff has been running a retail

outlet for selling petroleum products of Hindustan Petroleum

Corporation Limited.

6. In this appeal, the appellant/plaintiff has raised the following

substantial questions of law:-

“(1) Whether the courts below are justified in decreeing the suit for permanent injunction when the plaintiff has no right over the suit property?

(2) When the suit in O.S.No.360 of 1997 is pending on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri, is it proper for the courts below to decide the present suit and made a finding on issues that are irrelevant for consideration?

(3) Whether in a suit for bare injunction, are the courts right in framing issues as to the validity of Ex.A1?

(4) Is the lower appellate court right in framing an issue for consideration that was not even touched upon by the trial court?”

_________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Page No 3 of 4 S.A.No.185 of 2012

C.SARAVANAN, J.

arb

7. Though a reference has been made in O.S.No.360 of 1997, there

are no records to substantiate the same.

8. In my view, none of the questions of law raised by the

appellant/plaintiff are substantial questions of law for the purpose of

consideration in this appeal under Section 100 of C.P.C.

9. Since no substantial questions of law arises, I do not find any

merits in this appeal. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed. No

costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

22.06.2021

arb Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order To:

1.The Principal Subordinate Court, Krishnagiri.