Madras High Court
Muruganandam vs Kasinathan on 25 November, 2021
S.A.No.992 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
S.A.No.992 of 2021
Muruganandam .. Plaintiff/ Appellant/
Appellant
Vs.
Kasinathan .. Defendant / Respondent/
Respondent
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree on
the file of Sub Court, Mannargudi in A.S.No.10 of 2016 dated
21.09.2017 by confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.18 of
2015 dated 27.11.2015 on the file of District Munsif-cum-Judicial
Magistrate Court, Valangaiman.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Thamizhavel
For Respondent : Mr.D.Lakshmipathy
******
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree
of the learned Subordinate Judge, Mannargudi in A.S.No.10 of 2016
dated 21.09.2017 confirming the Judgment and Decree of the learned
District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Valangaiman in
O.S.No.18 of 2015 dated 27.11.2015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.992 of 2021
2. The Appellant filed a suit against the respondent seeking the
relief of permanent injunction and restraining the respondent not to
interfere with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
3. The case of the appellant as seen from the plaint averments, in
brief, is as follows:-
3.1. The suit property belongs to one Sarangarajan absolutely.
Appellant herein was cultivating the lands of Sarangarajan for a long
time. Appellant requested the owner Sarangarajan to sell the suit property
to him. Accordingly, an agreement of sale had been entered into between
the appellant and Sarangarajan on 20.11.2011. On the date of the sale
agreement itself, entire sale consideration was paid to Sarangarajan and it
was agreed to execute the sale deed as and when required by the
appellant. The said Sarangarajan is no more and his wife and daughter,
who are at present in America, are ready to execute the sale deed.
3.2. There is no dispute between the heirs of Sarangarajan and the
appellant herein. The suit property is a punja land and the appellant is
cultivating punja crops in the suit property. He constructed a thatched
house, obtained electricity service connection and is in possession and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.992 of 2021
enjoyment of the suit property. The respondent is the appellant's sister's
husband. He has no right whatsoever in the suit property. The
relationship between the appellant and the respondent is not good. There
were previous litigations, pursuant to which, appellant had given a police
complaint against the respondent. Respondent was trying to interfere
with the appellant's possession of the suit property from 10.09.2015 and
therefore, the suit came to be filed.
3.3. It appears that though the respondent appeared before the trial
Court through an Advocate, he remained ex-parte and therefore, an ex-
parte judgment was passed on 27.11.2015. It is seen from this judgment
that the suit was dismissed primarily on the ground that some of the
revenue records produced by the appellant are in the name of owner
Sarangarajan and one Rengasami and there is no explanation as to who is
Rengasami. Appellant has not produced any documents to prove his
possession after 2011. On this reason, the suit was dismissed.
3.4. Appellant filed A.S.No.10 of 2016 against the judgment of the
trial Court. The learned First Appellate Court also found that the
appellant has not produced acceptable evidence to show his claim of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.992 of 2021
possession and confirmed the judgment of the trial Court by dismissing
the appeal. Challenging the said judgment, this Second Appeal is
preferred.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
appellant has produced enough materials to show that he is in possession
and enjoyment of the suit property on the date of filing the suit. There is
no dispute between the legal heirs of Sarangarajan and the appellant with
regard to the sale agreement and enjoyment of the suit property by the
appellant. When that being the case, the dismissal of the suit by the
Court below is not on the basis of the evidence available. Therefore, he
prays for setting aside the judgments of the Courts below.
5. Considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused
the records.
6. It is an admitted case of the appellant that the suit property
belongs to one Sarangarajan. The appellant has produced before the trial
Court Exs.A1 to A9. Ex.A.1 is the unregistered sale agreement dated
20.11.2011. Ex.A2 is the receipt given by the Government for Maaniyam
and other exhibits are revenue records. As seen from the Judgment of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.992 of 2021
trial Court that Adangal and Chitta namely Ex.A7 to Ex.A9 are in the
name of Sarangarajan and one Rengasami. Ex.A7 Adangal relates to the
fasali 1421 in the name of Rengasami. There is no explanation as to who
is Rengasami found in Ex.A7 Adangal.
7. It is also observed that after 2011, the appellant has not
produced any document to show his possession over the suit property.
The suit was filed in the year 2015. That apart, when it is claimed that the
suit property absolutely belongs to Sarangarajan, absolutely there is no
pleading or evidence with regard to the fact as to how the suit property
belongs to Sarangarajan. When it is claimed in the plaint that the
appellant was cultivating the suit property for a long period, even prior to
the alleged execution of the sale agreement dated 20.11.2011, no single
piece of evidence is produced to show the lease agreement or enjoyment
of the suit property as a lessee by the appellant for a long time.
8. There is no pleading in the plaint with regard to the quantum of
sale consideration. When it is claimed that Sarangarajan's wife and
daughter are abroad, it is not specifically pleaded as to their names.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.992 of 2021
Sarangarajan has claimed to be no more, but there is no details with
regard to the date of death. Curiously, the sale agreement said to have
been executed on 20.11.2011, but there is no explanation or answer to the
question as to why the appellant has not taken any steps for the
completion of the sale deed. More curious is that the respondent in this
case is the appellant's own brother-in-law. It appears that, for somebody
else's property, two persons are fighting to set up title and possession.
Hence, we cannot avoid doubting that this may be a collusive suit.
9. This Court finds from the evidence produced that the appellant
has not satisfactorily proved his legal possession of the suit property on
the date of filing the suit. The Courts below have properly appreciated
the evidences and have rightly dismissed the suit. This Court finds no
reason to interfere with the judgments of the Courts below and there is no
substantial questions of law involved in this appeal.
10. In this view of the matter, the Judgment and Decree passed by
the Sub Court, Mannargudi in A.S.No.10 of 2016 dated 21.09.2017
confirming the Decree and Judgment in O.S.No.18 of 2015 dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.992 of 2021
27.11.2015 on the file of District Munsif -cum-Judicial Magistrate Court,
Valangaiman is confirmed and therefore, the Second Appeal stands
Dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
25.11.2021
Index: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-Speaking Order
To:
1. The Sub Court, Mannargudi
2. The District Munsif -cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Valangaiman
3. The V.R. Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.992 of 2021
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.,
sts
Judgment made in
S.A.No.992 of 2021
Dated:
25.11.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
