Madras High Court
Lalitha vs Appadurai on 1 April, 2022
S.A.No.866 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 01.04.2022
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.ANAND VEKATESH
S.A.No.866 of 2016
and CMP Nos.17181 & 17182 of 2016
Lalitha ..Appellant
.Vs.
1.Appadurai
2.The Tahsildar
Taluk Office
Cheyyar
Thiruvannamalai District. ..Respondents
Prayer: Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure
against the Judgment and Decree dated 20.04.2016 made in A.S.No.11 of 2015
on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Cheyyar confirming the judgment
and decree dated 21.10.2013 made in O.S.No.90 of 2008, on the file of the
learned Additional District Munsif Judge, Cheyyar.
For Appellant : Mr.E.Sathiyaraj
For Respondents : Mr.P.Mani
for R1
Mrs.E.Indhumathi
Government Advocate
for R2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
S.A.No.866 of 2016
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff is the appellant in this Second Appeal.
2.The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property which is a Government
poramboke land was in possession and enjoyment of her husband and on his
demise, it is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and her family for more
than 20 years. The further case of the plaintiff is that the 1st defendant, who is
her brother-in-law was attempting to interfere with the possession and enjoyment
of the property based on Ex.B-1 patta which was obtained by him behind the back
of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also filed the patta and other documents to
establish her possession in the suit property. Since she apprehended threat to the
suit property which was claimed to be in her possession and enjoyment, the suit
was filed seeking for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants
from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
3.The 1st defendant filed a written statement and took a stand that no patta
was granted in favour of the plaintiff and her husband and he has been in
possession and enjoyment of the suit property for more than 17 years. The 1st
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.866 of 2016
defendant also relied upon Ex.B-1 patta that was issued in his favour and hence,
the 1st defendant sought for the dismissal of the suit.
4.The 2nd defendant - Tahsildar filed a written statement and took a stand
that if at all, the plaintiff is aggrieved by the patta granted in favour of the 1 st
defendant, she should only redress her grievance by approaching the appropriate
authority and she cannot make allegations that Ex.B-1 is a fabricated patta. The
2nd defendant has further questioned the maintainability of the suit on the ground
that Section 80 CPC., notice was not issued before the filing of the suit.
5.Both the Courts below on considering the facts and circumstances of the
case and on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, concurrently held
against the plaintiff and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff
has filed this second appeal before this Court.
6.Heard Mr.E.Sathiyaraj, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.P.Mani,
learned counsel for R1 and Mrs.E.Indhumathi, learned Government Advocate for
R2. This Court has carefully considered the materials available on record and the
findings of both the Courts below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.866 of 2016
7.There is no requirement for this Court to go into any of the issues and the
suit is liable to be dismissed on the simple ground that the plaintiff was not in
possession of the property as per Ex.A-1 settlement deed that was relied upon by
the plaintiff. Admittedly, the plaintiff had executed a settlement deed in favour of
her son on 21.05.2007 and the same was marked as Ex.A-1. In the recitals, it has
been specifically stated that the possession of the suit property has been handed
over to the plaintiff's son Vijayakumar. Thereafter, the plaintiff files the suit on
13.02.2008. On the date when the suit was filed, the possession had already been
handed over in favour of the plaintiff's son. Therefore, the very claim made by the
plaintiff, as if, she is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, is
unsustainable. This vital fact has been noticed by both the Courts below and
hence the same has been put against the plaintiff. This Court does not find any
ground to interfere with this finding against the plaintiff.
8.Both the Courts below have rendered a factual finding that the plaintiff is
not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and the same is based on
appreciation of evidence. This Court does not find any perversity in the findings of
both the Courts below. In any case, no substantial question of law is involved in
this Second Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.866 of 2016
9.In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
01.04.2022
Internet: Yes
Index: Yes/No
KP
To
1.Subordinate Judge, Cheyyar.
2.District Munsif Judge, Cheyyar.
3.The Section Officer
V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.866 of 2016
N.ANAND VENKATESH,J.
KP
Judgment in
S.A.No.866 of 2016
01.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
