Madras High Court
Dhanushkodi vs N.Narayana Pillai on 22 October, 2021
S.A.(MD)No.1282 of 2006
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.10.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
S.A.(MD)No.1282 of 2006
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2006
Dhanushkodi ... Appellant
Vs.
N.Narayana Pillai ... Respondent
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code,
against the judgment and decree of the learned Principal Sub Court,
Tiruchirapalli, in A.S.No.243 of 2003 dated 28.06.2006 reversing the judgment
and decree of the learned I Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruchirapalli, in
O.S.No.2870 of 1992 dated 20.08.2003.
For Appellant : Mr.P.Thiagarajan
For Respondent : Mrs.S.S.Prabhashini
For Mr.R.Ravindran
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
S.A.(MD)No.1282 of 2006
JUDGEMENT
The defendant in O.S.No.2870 of 1992 on the file of the I Additional
District Munsif Court, Tiruchirapalli, is the appellant in this second appeal.
The respondent herein namely, N.Narayana Pillai filed the said suit seeking the
relief of permanent injunction restraining the appellant from interfering with
his possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The appellant herein filed
written statement controverting the plaint averments. Based on the divergent
pleadings, the trial Court framed the necessary issues.
2.The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1. Two other witnesses were
examined on his side. Exs.A1 to A28 were marked. The appellant examined
himself as D.W.1 and one Manickam was examined as D.W.2. Exs.B1 to B29
were marked. An advocate commissioner was appointed and his report and
plan were marked as Exs.C1 and C2.
3.After a consideration of the evidence on record, the trial Court by
judgment and decree dated 20.08.2003 dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the
same, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.243 of 2003 before the Principal Sub Court,
Tiruchirapalli. The first appellate Court by the impugned judgment and decree
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.1282 of 2006
dated 28.06.2006 reversed the decision of the trial Court and allowed the
appeal and decreed the suit as prayed for. Challenging the same, this second
appeal came to be filed.
4.This second appeal was admitted on the following substantial
questions of law:-
“1)Whether a suit for bare injunction without prayer for
declaration of title will lie, especially when the plaintiff is not in
physical possession of the suit property? and
2)Whether the first appellate Court is right in relying
upon Exs.A1 to A25, when the plaintiff had not correlated the
same with the suit property?”
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated all the
contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds and called upon this Court
to answer the substantial questions of law in favour of the appellant and set
aside the impugned judgment and decree and restore the decision of the trial
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.1282 of 2006
6.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted
that the impugned judgment and decree do not warrant any interference.
7.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the
evidence on record. The suit property has admittedly been a grama natham. It
is comprised in S.No.549/11 corresponding to old S.No.150 in Mekkudi
Villagi, Chinnakaruppur, Tiruchirapalli Taluk. The suit property measures
6 cents. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, the
person in occupation of a grama natham is acknowledged and recognized of its
owner. The plaintiff had established that a house was standing in the suit
property and that it suffered damage during the 1977 floods and that the
Government also issued Ex.A21 recognizing that he was entitled to receive aid.
The plaintiff had marked Exs.A1 to A8 indicating that the said house was
assessed to property tax and that the plaintiff had also been remitting the same.
That is why, the first appellate Court held that the plaintiff was in settled
possession of the suit property and that therefore, he can maintain a suit for
permanent injunction and he need not seek any relief of declaration. Therefore,
I answer the first substantial question of law against the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.1282 of 2006
8.But then, it has been amply brought out in evidence that the suit
property comprises a dilapidated house and an adjacent vacant land. The
evidence adduced by the plaintiff only shows that he was in possession of the
house portion. Ex.A27 is the patta issued by the Special Thasildar (Natham) in
favour of the plaintiff. The original document has been filed. I went through
its contents. It states that patta has been issued in favour of the plaintiff for the
property comprised in S.No.549/11, corresponding to S.F.No.150 for an extent
of land measuring 0.010 hac. The mathematical conversion table indicates that
this corresponds to 2.49 cents of land. When after due enquiry, the competent
authority had issued natham patta in favour of the plaintiff recognizing his title
and ownership over 2.50 cents of land, the plaintiff will not be justified in
seeking permanent injunction for 6 cents of land. The first appellate Court
failed to properly construe Ex.A27. Therefore, the second substantial question
of law is answered in favour of the appellant. Therefore, the judgment and
decree passed by the first appellate Court warrants modification.
9.The second appeal is partly allowed. The plaintiff will be entitled to
decree of permanent injunction in respect of 2.50 cents of land under Ex.A27,
covering the house portion. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.1282 of 2006
petition is closed.
22.10.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
ias
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 Principal Sub Court,
Tiruchirapalli.
2.The I Additonal District Munsif Court,
Tiruchirapalli.
Copy to:
The Record Keeper,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.1282 of 2006
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.1282 of 2006
G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.
ias
S.A.(MD)No.1282 of 2006
22.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
