Madras High Court
Ranganathan vs Rathinavelu on 8 February, 2022
S.A.No.427 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 08.02.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
S.A.No.427 of 2014
1.Ranganathan
2.Thangammal
3.Rajalakshmi
4.Pushpanathan
5.Saravanan ...Appellants
Vs.
1.Rathinavelu
2.Rani ...Respondents
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., to set aside the
Judgment and Decree dated 28.02.2011 of the learned Sub Court, Mettur in
A.S.No.2 of 2010 confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 14.12.2009 of
the learned District Munsif Court, Mettur in O.S.No.102 of 2006 by allowing
the second appeal with cost.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Chandra Bose
For Respondents : M/s.Zeenath Begum for
Ms.P.Sharmila
1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.427 of 2014
JUDGMENT
The unsuccessful defendants are the appellants in the present second
appeal.
2.The respondents/plaintiffs filed the suit against the appellants
seeking for the relief of permanent injunction on the ground that they are
the owners of the subject property by virtue of two Sale Deeds dated
13.02.1991 which were marked as Ex. A1 and A2 and that the appellants
were attempting to trespass into the property and in order to protect their
possession, the suit came to be filed.
3.The case of the appellants/defendants is that they are close
relatives of the respondents and an agreement of sale was executed in their
favour on 24.10.2004 which was marked as Ex.B1 and the possession was
also handed over in part performance of the agreement. Therefore, the
appellants have taken a stand that they are in possession of the property
and there is no question of interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs.
4.During the pendency of the proceedings, the plaintiffs filed a memo
and reported that they are not pressing their relief insofar as the pipeline
that was running in the schedule mentioned properties. Therefore, the
2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.427 of 2014
plaintiffs contested the suit only insofar as the relief of injunction for
restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession and
enjoyment.
5.Both the Courts below on appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence and after considering the facts and circumstances of the case,
proceeded to allow the suit concurrently. Aggrieved by the same, the
defendants have filed the present second appeal.
6.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the plaintiffs
by giving up a portion of the relief pertaining to the pipeline running over
the property, have virtually given up their entire relief and it only shows
that the appellants are also enjoying the water from the pipeline for the
properties situated in the 2nd and 3rd item of the suit schedule property. It
was further contended that the appellants are in possession of the suit
schedule property by virtue of the agreement of sale and therefore, both
the Courts below failed to appreciate this fact and ought not to have
granted the relief in favour of the plaintiffs.
7.This Court carefully considered the submissions made by the
learned counsel of the appellants and carefully perused the evidence
available on record.
3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.427 of 2014
8.There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the plaintiffs are the
owners of the suit properties by virtue of the title documents marked as
EX.A1 and A2. The plaintiffs had also marked the revenue records as well as
House Tax receipts to prove their possession in the suit property. The
appellants/defendants are claiming a right only in their capacity as
agreement holders. According to the defendants, possession was handed
over in part performance of the agreement and hence, the plaintiffs are not
entitled for the relief sought for in the suit.
9.Both the Courts below have appreciated the materials available on
record and found that plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the
property. It was also found that the plaintiffs just by giving up a portion of
the relief pertaining to the pipelines, cannot be held to be disentitled for the
other relief pertaining to injunction restraining the defendants from
interfering or trespassing into the suit property.
10.Insofar as the contention regarding handing over of possession in
part performance of the agreement is concerned, EX.B1 is admittedly an
unregistered document. A transferee in possession in part performance of
an agreement can rely upon such an agreement only if it is compulsorily
4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.427 of 2014
registered. The law on this issue is well settled and useful reference can be
made to the judgment of S.Baskar vs. Palanisamy and others reported
in 2014 (1) MWN Civil 61. In the present case, the agreement in question
is admittedly an unregistered document and therefore, the issue with regard
to possession cannot be determined by looking into this document.
11.The next issue that has been projected by the learned counsel for
the appellants is with regard to giving up a portion of the relief pertaining to
the pipeline. Where a larger relief is sought for by the plaintiff, it is always
left open to the plaintiff to give up a portion of the relief even during the
pendency of the proceedings. Such a right is available under Order 23 Rule
1 of C.P.C. The Court will be handicapped only where plaintiff has sought for
a lesser relief and ultimately seeks for a larger relief. Under such
circumstances, such a larger relief cannot be granted by the Court. This
issue has also been properly appreciated by both the Courts below.
12.In the considered view of this Court, both the Courts below have
dealt with all the issues and rendered their findings based on the oral and
documentary evidence. This Court does not find any perversity in the
findings rendered by both the Courts below. This Court cannot reappreciate
the evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 of C.P.C.
5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.427 of 2014
This
6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.427 of 2014
N.ANAND VENKATESH.,J
ssr
Court does not find any substantial questions of law involved in the present
second appeal.
13.In the result, the second appeal stands dismissed. Considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
08.02.2022
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
ssr
To
1.The Sub Court, Mettur.
2.The District Munsif Court, Mettur.
S.A.No.427 of 2014
7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
