Madras High Court
Palaneeswari vs A.Krishnamoorthy (Died) on 25 October, 2021
S.A.No.764 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
S.A.No.764 of 2012
and M.P.No.1 of 2012
Palaneeswari ... Appellant
Vs.
1. A.Krishnamoorthy (died)
2. K.Charles Vijayaraj
3. P.Leena Jasmine
4. K.Shobana Britto
5. K.Praveena
(died on 22.11.2011) leaving behind
her only minor daughter K.Reenish
D/o.Karthick Rep. by her Natural
Guardian father Mr.Karthick)
(R2 to R5 are impleaded as the legal
representatives of the deceased
1st respondent vide Order of this Court,
dated 01.09.2021 made in CMP No.
13613 of 2021 in SA No.764 of 2012 ) ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.764 of 2012
PRAYER: The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code against the Judgment and Decree, dated 14.03.2012 in A.S.No.356 of
2011 on the file of the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai,
confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 20.06.2011 in O.S.No.8579 of
2008 on the file of the learned XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Ramana Reddy
For Respondent : Ms.Vijaya Baskar (for R2 to R4)
JUDGMENT
The unsuccessful defendant is the appellant before this Court. The
plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction on the basis of title derived by him
by way of a registered sale deed, dated 15.11.1972.
2. The property originally belonged to one V.Raju and the plaintiff's
vendor Annakili ammal, W/o. Kathirvelu has purchased the same from him
under the registered sale deed, bearing document No.1686 of 1963.
Subsequently, the plaintiff purchased the property which is measuring an extent
of 2.5 cents by way of a registered sale deed, dated 15.11.1972 bearing
registration No.3082 of 1972, registered at the office of the Sub Registrar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.764 of 2012
Office, Saidapet. As the defendant was attempting to interfere with her
possession, the plaintiff filed a suit.
3. In the written statement, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff
taking advantage of the vacant portion of the property, is attempting to grab the
same. The vacant portion which was allotted to her husband who is the elder
brother of the plaintiff viz., late A.Dakshinamoorthy, and he had been in
continuous possession thereafter by her. Hence, she prayed for dismissal of the
suit.
4. At trail, the plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to
A7 were marked. On the side of the defendant, she examined herself as D.W.1
and one Thanthoni was examined as D.W.2 and Exs.B1 to B20 were marked.
5. The trial Court upon framing appropriate issues and consideration
of the evidence on record, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved,
the defendant preferred an appeal before the learned VI Additional Judge, City
Civil Court, Chennai. The first appellate Court on a re-appreciation of the
evidence of record, concurred with the findings of the trial Court and confirmed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.764 of 2012
the same. Aggrieved over the same, the defendant is before this Court.
6. The following substantial question of law was framed by this Court
on 07.11.2012 at the time of admission:
“Whether the Courts below have committed an error in
granting the relief of injunction when the defendant does
not dispute the title of the plaintiff in respect of the
property purchased by him and on the other hand
contends that there was no attempt made by the defendant
to trespass upon any portion of the plaintiff's property and
the plaintiff tries derive the defendant by providing
incomplete description of the property regarding which the
relief has been sought for?”
7. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, the
entire property measuring around 1 ½ grounds belonged to one Appadurai who
is the father-in-law of the appellant/defendant and father of the plaintiff and his
brothers. At partition, a portion was allotted to the defendant's husband
A.Dakshinamoorthy who is the elder son of Appadurai and elder brother of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.764 of 2012
respondent/plaintiff. Taking advantage of the wrong identification of property,
the plaintiff is trying to grab over and above 2 ½ cents.
8. In reply, the learned counsel for the respondent / plaintiff would
submit that he sought for permanent injunction only with respect to his property
measuring about 2 ½ cents. The appellant/defendant is residing in
Govindarajapuram 2nd street in different door no, whereas the suit property
situates in Govindarajapuram 1st street. Without properly identifying and
understanding the exact location of the house, she unnecessarily interfered with
his possession.
9. Admittedly, the plaintiff had proved his title by virtue of the
registered sale deed and he is entitled to be in possession of 2 ½ cents which he
purchased. Insofar as the identification of the property, the parties have to file a
comprehensive suit for declaration of title, which according to the learned
counsel for the appellant, was filed in O.S.No.6131 of 2016 and he is in the
process of restoring the same. Therefore, it is open to the parties to work out
their remedy in the manner known to law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.764 of 2012
10. Insofar as the present Second Appeal is concerned, the concurrent
findings of the Courts below that the plaintiff is entitled to be in possession of
2½ cents, in the considered opinion of this Court, does not warrant interference.
The plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for, following the principle of
possession follows title. Further, this Court, while answering the question of
law framed, leaving it open to the parties in respect of the portion of the
property with which the plaintiff does not claim any title.
11. Therefore, this Court finds no merits in the Second Appeal and
accordingly the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
25.10.2021
vum
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order / Non speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.764 of 2012
To
1.The VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2.The XVIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
3. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madras High Court,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.764 of 2012
M. GOVINDARAJ, J.
vum
S.A.No.764 of 2012
and M.P.No.1 of 2012
25.10.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
