Madras High Court
Thennarasu vs Chellakkannu Ammal on 21 October, 2021
1 S.A.(MD)No.692 OF 2006
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
S.A.(MD)No.692 of 2006 and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2006
Thennarasu ... Appellant / Appellant /
3rd Defendant
Vs.
1. Chellakkannu Ammal
Through her Power of Attorney
Govindaraju. ... 1st Respondent / 1st Respondent /
Plaintiff
2. Ramaian
3. Thirunavukkarasu
4. Senthil
5. Alagappan
6. Thangappan
7. Ayyasamy ... Respondents 2 to 7 / Respondents 2 to 7/
Defendants 1,2,4 & 5 to 7
Prayer: Second appeal filed under Section 100 of
C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2004
made in A.S.No.67 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District
Judge, Pudukkottai, confirming the judgment and decree
dated 11.12.2002 made in O.S.No.68 of 2000 on the file of the
Principal District Munsif, Pudukkottai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
2 S.A.(MD)No.692 OF 2006
For Appellant : Mr.Anand Chandrasekar,
for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates.
For R-1 : Mr.G.Sridharan
For R-2 to R-7 : No appearance.
***
JUDGMENT
The third defendant in O.S.No.68 of 2000 on the file
of the Principal District Munsif Court, Pudukkottai, is the
appellant in this second appeal.
2. The first respondent herein, namely, Chellakkannu
Ammal was the plaintiff in the suit. The suit was filed for the
relief of permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff was
that the suit properties which are agricultural lands were
assigned in favour of her husband in the year 1972. Perumal
passed away some 15 years later and the plaintiff, his wife
inherited the suit properties. She was in possession and
enjoyment of both the suit items. She claimed that defendants
1 to 4 attempted to commit trespass into suit item No.1 on
04.02.2000 and defendants 5 to 7 attempted to trespass into
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
suit second item on some other date. In order to protect her
possession, the injunction suit came to be filed.
3. Except the appellant who was shown as the third
defendant, the other defendants remained ex-parte. The
plaintiff's power agent was examined as P.W.1 and two other
witnesses were examined on the side of the plaintiff. Ex.A.1 to
Ex.A.12 were marked. The appellant examined himself as
D.W.1. Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.5 were marked. Two court exhibits were
marked. The trial Court after a consideration of the evidence
on record, by judgment and decree dated 11.12.2002 decreed
the suit as prayed for. The appellant herein filed A.S.No.67 of
2003 before the Principal District Judge, Pudukkottai. The first
appellate Court by judgment and decree dated 25.02.2004
confirmed the decision of the trial Court and dismissed the
appeal. Challenging the same, this second appeal came to be
filed.
4. Even though the second appeal was filed way back
in the year 2005 itself, till date, it had not been admitted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
pointed out that the appellant did not contest the claim of the
plaintiff that she is having title over both the suit items. In the
written statement, the appellant stated that on 04.02.2000, no
such occurrence as claimed by the plaintiff, took place and
that the appellant was employed as Cane Officer in Arignar
Anna Sugar Mill, at Kurungulam. The specific stand of the
appellant is that he was an unnecessary party to the suit
proceedings. When such a categorical stand was taken by the
appellant, I am of the view that the question of passing decree
against the appellant does not arise at all. The appellant had
categorically stated that he is not the owner of the suit
property. The appellant stated that he is not challenging the
plaintiff's title over the suit property. Therefore, recording the
said submission, the suit itself could have been closed on that
basis.
7. In this view of the matter, the judgment and decree
passed by the Courts below are modified. This second appeal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
is disposed of by recording the submission of the appellant
that he does not challenge the title or possession of the
plaintiff over the suit property. The learned counsel on either
side inform this Court that it is only the third defendant who
has challenged the decree passed by the Courts below and the
other defendants had chosen to accept the same. In this view
of the matter, the impugned judgment and decree is set aside
as regards the appellant alone. The categorical statement
made by the appellant is also recorded and that should redress
the concerns and apprehension of the plaintiff. The judgment
and decree passed by the Courts below shall stand as against
the other defendants.
8. This second appeal is disposed of on these terms.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
21.10.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PMU
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the
copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
PMU
To:
1. The Principal District Judge,
Pudukkottai.
2. The Principal District Munsif,
Pudukkottai.
3. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
S.A.(MD)No.692 of 2006
21.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
