Madras High Court
Arunachalam vs The District Collector on 21 October, 2021
S.A.(MD)No.480 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.10.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA
S.A(MD)No.480 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD) No.6423 of 2021
Arunachalam ... Appellant/Appellant/Plaintiff
Vs.
1. The District Collector,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
2. The Secretary,
District Agriculture Marketing and Business Committee,
Anna Nagar,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli District
3. The Sub Collector,
Main Road,
Cheranmahadevi,
Tirunelveli District.
4. The Executive Officer,
Town Panchayat,
Cheranmahadevi,
Tirunelveli District. ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD)No.480 of 2021
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code
praying this Court against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.09.2018
passed in A.S.No.42 of 2015 on the file of the Learned Subordinate
Court, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District, confirming the Judgment
and Decree dated 27.02.2014 passed in O.S.No.182 of 2010 on the file of
the Learned District Munsif Court, Cheranmahadevi, Tirunelveli District.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Shankar Ganesh
For Respondents : Mr.A.Baskaran,
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in O.S.No.182 of 2010, whose suit for
permanent injunction was dismissed by the trial Court, upon
confirmation of the same by the Appellate Court, has come up with this
Second Appeal.
2.The plaintiff has filed a suit for bare injunction. The
plaintiff had claimed that the suit schedule property belong to one
Ramasamy Somaiyaziyar S/o.Mahadeva Somaiyaziyar. The said
Ramasamy Somaiyaziyar had given a power of attorney to one
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD)No.480 of 2021
Egnanarayanan. Based on which, the plaintiff had purchased the property
on 09.06.2003 and he was in possession of the property. On 23.07.2010,
the plaintiff came to know that the defendants were taking steps to
establish "cHth; re;ij" (Farmers Market)
3.It is the claim of the plaintiff that the predecessor in title
were the land holders and apart from their house, the suit schedule
property and other areas were used for rearing cattle and stocking hay-
stacks and that the property was classified as a private vacant natham
land and as per the natham register, the vacant lands were assigned for
private parties for rearing cattle and stocking agricultural products and
apprehending that the defendants were taking steps to establish Farmers
Market. The plaintiff had sent a notice to all the defendants on
02.08.2010 and the defendants 1 and 3 had not sent any reply and the
second defendant had sent a reply on 31.08.2010 directing the plaintiff to
approach the fourth defendant to get an explanation and hence, the
predecessor in title had been enjoying the property for more than 16
years, the plaintiff had filed the suit for injunction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD)No.480 of 2021
4.The defendants /respondents entered appearance and a
common written statement was filed on behalf of the defendants 1 to 4.
It was admitted that the suit schedule property originally belong to one
Mahadeva somaiyaziar and that by a registered settlement, dated
17.10.1957 registered as document No.1738 /57, he had settled the suit
schedule properties and some other properties to the fourth defendant for
public purpose and from the date of settlement, the property was in the
occupation and possession of the fourth defendant and that the property
was never possessed by the son of Mahadev Somaiyaziar namely,
Ramasamy Somaiyaziar and that the defendants had averred that the
plaintiff had by creating fabricated documents had attempted to grab the
property and that he was not entitled to the relief of injunction.
5.The trial Court has framed the following issues :
1) Whether the plaintiff has title and possession over the
property ? and
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction
and other reliefs ?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD)No.480 of 2021
6.On the side of the plaintiff, plaintiff examined himself as
P.W.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.8 and had examined Egnanarayanan, the
power agent as P.W.2 and marked Exs.A.9 and A.10. On the side of the
defendants, the Executive Officer of the fourth defendant was examined
as D.W.1 and Exs.B.1 to B.3 were marked.
7.The trial Court finding that the plaintiff has not proved
title and possession over the property, had dismissed the suit. Against
the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff had filed A.S.No.42 of 2015, on the
file of the Subordinate Court, Ambasamudram, Tirunelveli District.
8.The appellate Court hasframed the following questions for
determination :
1)Whether the trial Court was right in finding that the
plaintiff had not proved possession ?
2)Whether the judgment and decree of the trial court is
legally sustainable ?
9.The appellate Court finding that the suit schedule property
was settled in favour of the fourth defendant by the predecessor in title
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD)No.480 of 2021
by way of settlement deed, dated 17.10.1957 and that the plaintiff had
not proved the possession and title and thereby dismissed the appeal.
Against which, the present second appeal has been preferred by the
plaintiff.
10.The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that
the Courts below failed to take into consideration the fact that the
predecessor in title does not have a right to settle the property in favour
of the fourth defendant and the son of the predecessor in title was entitled
to hold the property and that he had given power of attorney to P.W.2
and through him the property was sold to the plaintiff.
11.Per contra, Mr.A.Baskaran, learned Government
Advocate appearing for the respondents would submit that it is a suit for
bare injunction. The suit schedule property along with the other
properties had been settled by the predecessor in title in favour of the
fourth defendant by a registered settlement deed, dated 17.10.1957 and
thereafter, the fourth defendant has constructed two water tanks and that
they were in possession of the fourth defendant, from the date of
settlement. Further, when the defendants have denied the title, the duty
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD)No.480 of 2021
is cast upon the plaintiff/ appellant to prove that he is the owner of the
property. The Courts below rightly finding that the plaintiff-appellant
has neither proved his title nor proved the possession and rightly
dismissed the suit and the same was confirmed by the appellate Court.
12. Despite his best efforts, the learned counsel for the
appellant is unable to make out any question of law, much less a
substantial question of law in this appeal. Further this Court does not
find any perversity or error in the findings of facts by both the Courts
below.
13.The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashok Rangnath Magar Vs.
Shrikant Govindrao Sangvikar reported in (2015) 16 SCC 763, has held
that on admission if the High Court is satisfied that no substantial
question of law is involved, it shall dismiss the second appeal without
even formulating the substantial question of law. This view has been
affirmed by the Three Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case in Kirpa Ram (deceased) through Legal Representatives and
Others Vs. Surendra Deo Gaur and others reported in 2020 SCC online
SC 935.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD)No.480 of 2021
14.Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed, without
being admitted. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
21.10.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
rm
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.
To
1.The Subordinate Court,
Ambasamudram,
Tirunelveli District.
2.The District Munsif Court,
Cheranmahadevi,
Tirunelveli District.
3.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD)No.480 of 2021
A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA,J.,
rm
Judgment made in
S.A(MD)No.480 of 2021
21.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
