Madras High Court
Kumarasamy vs Pushparayar on 9 February, 2022
S.A.No.847 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.02.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
Second Appeal No.847 of 2016
Kumarasamy ... Appellant
Vs.
Pushparayar ... Respondent
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, against the judgment and decree in A.S. No.49 of 2013, on the
file of the Principal District Judge, Ariyalur dated 11.04.2016, in
confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.255 of 2003, on the file of
the District Munsif, Jayankondam dated 10.08.2009.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Raghavachari
For Respondent : Mrs.M.Senthil Vadivu
JUDGMENT
The defendant is the appellant in the Second Appeal. The
respondent / plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the
appellant from disturbing his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.847 of 2016
suit property.
2. The case of the respondent is that the property originally
belonged to the appellant and he sold the property to the respondent for a
valuable consideration by executing a registered Sale Deed dated
16.02.2000. Thereafter, the respondent was in possession and enjoyment
of the suit property and the Revenue Records were also mutated in the
name of the respondent. While so, an attempt was made by the appellant
to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the property and hence
the respondent filed the suit seeking for the relief of permanent injunction.
3. The case of the appellant is that he never executed the
document with an intention to sell the property and it is stated that he
borrowed money and the document was executed only by way of a security
for the loan transaction. Accordingly, the appellant had sought for the
dismissal of the suit.
4. Both the Courts below on appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence and after considering the facts and circumstances of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.847 of 2016
the case, decreed the suit as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the
present Second Appeal has been filed before this Court.
5. This Court heard the learned counsel for the appellant and
carefully perused the oral and documentary evidence and also the findings
rendered by both the Courts below.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Sale
Deed marked as Ex.A1 was never intended to convey the property in
favour of the respondent and it was more in the nature of a security for the
loan transaction between the parties. The learned counsel further
submitted that a careful reading of Exs.B1 to Ex.B3 along with the
evidence of D.W.2 and D.W.3, would show that loans are obtained
regularly from various parties and in the same way, the loan was obtained
from the respondent also and the conduct would show that the appellant
never intended to convey the property in favour of the respondent. In short,
the learned counsel for the appellant wanted to construe Ex.A1 as a loan
document.
7. Both the Courts below have categorically found that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.847 of 2016
appellant is a retired Village Administrative Officer, who understands the
nature of transaction that took place with the respondent. The various
terms of the Sale Deed marked as Ex.A1 clearly shows that the appellant
had received a valuable consideration and the Sale Deed has been executed
in the presence of the witnesses. D.W.2 who was one of the witness to the
document had made a statement as if the consideration never passed on.
His evidence was appreciated by both the Courts below and it was found
that the statement made by him goes contrary to the contents of the Sale
Deed marked as Ex.A1.
8. Both the Courts below also took into consideration Ex.B7
which is a Police complaint and in that complaint, there is a clear mention
about the execution of the Sale Deed in favour of the respondent. The
appellant also made an attempt to show as if he continues to be in
possession of the property and that the so called Sale Deed was never acted
upon. This stand taken by the appellant has also been rejected by both the
Courts below.
9. In the considered view of this Court, the Courts below have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.847 of 2016
properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rendered their
findings. This Court is not able to see any perversity in the findings of the
Courts below. This Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence in the Second
Appeal. No substantial question of law is available in this Second Appeal
and this Court does not find any ground to entertain the Second Appeal.
10. In the result, the Second Appeal stands dismissed.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order
as to costs.
09.02.2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order
Jeni/jv
To
1.The Principal District Judge, Ariyalur
2.The District Munsif, Jayankondam.
3. The Section Officer
VR Section, High Court Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.847 of 2016
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
Jeni/jv
Second Appeal No.847 of 2016
09.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
