Madras High Court
Rajathi vs Ponnaiah on 28 March, 2022
S.A(MD)No.206 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED:28.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
S.A(MD)No.206 of 2022
and
C.M.P(MD)No.2436 of 2022
Rajathi ... Appellant/Appellant/Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Ponnaiah
2.The Superintending Engineer,
T.N.E.B., Marudupandiar Nagar,
Sivagangai Town,
Sivagangai District.
3.The Junior Engineer,
T.N.E.B., Madurai to Thondi Road,
Natarasankottai,
Sivagangai Taluk,
Sivagangai District.
4.The Assistant Engineer,
T.N.E.B., Madurai to Thondi Road,
Kalaiarkovil,
Sivagangai Taluk,
Sivagangai District. ... Respondents/Respondents/
Defendants
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.206 of 2022
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the
judgment and decree passed by the Sub Court, Sivagangai in A.S.No.83
of 2014 dated 30.07.2021 upholding the judgment and decree dated
05.12.2013 passed by the District Munsif Sivagangai in O.S.No.267 of
2010.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Tamilmani
For R1 : Mr.S.Selva Aditya
for Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai.
JUDGMENT
The second appeal has been instituted under Section 100 of C.P.C.,
questioning the concurrent findings of the trial Court and the appellate
Court in the appeal Suit.
2.The suit is for permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed
mainly on the ground that the petitioner has not established his right
regarding the title and based on the Commissioner's Report and plan
Ex.C.1 and Ex.C2. As per the Commissioner's report, the Trial Court
found that the suit well is situated on the immediate East of the first
defendant's property and the said well is situated almost on the boundary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.206 of 2022
line of S.No.293/2C, 293/2B. Though as per the said Commissioner's
report, the suit Well is situated within S.No.293/2C, which is contrary to
the claim of the fist defendant that the said well is situated within S.No.
293/2B, but the said well fall within the property purchased by the first
defendant from the plaintiff Ex.B.1. The plaintiff has denied the sale
deed Ex.B.1 and has took a stand that she has not executed the said sale
deed. But the same sale deed Ex.B.1 was sent to analysis by finger print
bureau along with her admitted thump impression recorded in the open
Court and as per the report given by the finger print bureau, which was
marked as Ex.C.3, finger print found in Ex.B.1 tallied with the finger
print of the plaintiff taken up in the open Court. The trial Court proceeds
by stating that insofar as finger prints are concerned, it is an established
fact that no two persons will have the same finger print. Hence, the
finding of the finger print bureau that the finger print found in Ex.B.1 is
identical with that of the finger print of the plaintiff taken up in open
Court disproves the claim of the plaintiff that she has not executed Ex.B.
1 in favour of the first defendant. Thus, the genuineness and execution
of Ex.B.10 proved vide Ex.C.3 expert opinion beyond any doubt. Based
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.206 of 2022
on the above report and the expert's opinion, the trial Court has formed
an opinion that the plaintiff has not established her rights and
accordingly, dismissed the relief of permanent injunction. The trial Court
also confirmed the said findings, as there is no distinct and different
factors to consider the grounds raised in the appeal suit. The concurrent
findings of the Courts below reveals that there is no perversity or
infirmity as such.
3.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
reiterated that yet another suit was instituted by the first defendant for the
relief of declaration in O.S.No.72 of 2017. Further, the learned counsel
for the appellant pleaded before this Court that the plaintiff is also taking
steps to institute appropriate suit to establish her rights regarding the
title.
4.However, it is left open to the parties to establish their rights in
the manner known to law. As far as the present appeal is concerned, the
suit for permanent injunction was decided based on the commissioner's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.206 of 2022
report and considering the expert's opinion and those findings are
relatable to the suit for injunction cannot be a bar for the parties to
establish their rights in an independent manner. Therefore, this Court is
of the opinion that it is the right of the parties to establish the title,
ownership or otherwise. However, in the present appeal, there is no
sufficient evidence let in to consider the second appeal as the findings of
both the trial Court and the First Appellate Court are concurrent and there
is no acceptable substantial questions of law or sufficient grounds to
entertain the second appeal. Accordingly, the second appeal stands
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P is closed.
28.03.2022
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Ns
To
1. The the Sub Court,
Sivagangai.
2.The District Munsif,
Sivagangai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.206 of 2022
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
Ns
S.A(MD)No.206 of 2022
and
C.M.P(MD)No.2436 of 2022
28.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
