P.Rajarajan vs Dindigul Corporation
2023 Latest Caselaw 4225 Mad

                                                                                   S.A(MD).No.708 of 2022

                         BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                   DATED : 13.04.2023

                                                            CORAM:

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

                                                  S.A.(MD)No.708 of 2022

                     P.Rajarajan                       .... Appellant/Appellant/Plaintiff

                                                              Vs.
                     Dindigul Corporation,
                     Rep. By its Commissioner,
                     Municipal Office,
                     Main Road,
                     Dindigul                          ... Respondent/Respondent/Defendant

                     Prayer :         Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil
                     Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2022 passed in
                     A.S.No.60 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Sub-Court, Dindigul
                     confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2019 assed in O.S.No.
                     1626 of of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court,
                     Dindigul.


                                            For Appellant           : M/s. Mohana Bai

                                            For Respondent          : Mr.M.Thirunavukkarasu

                                                     JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent

findings of the courts below. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit. The

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A(MD).No.708 of 2022

suit was filed for declaration and permanent injunction. The trial court

partly decreed the suit by granting the relief of permanent injunction in

favour of the plaintiff. But however, rejected the declaratory relief. The

declaratory relief sought for by the plaintiff in the suit was that to declare

the plaintiff as a tenant. Aggrieved by the findings of the trial court, the

plaintiff filed a first appeal. The lower Appellate Court also confirmed the

findings of the trial court by dismissing the first appeal.

2. The declaratory relief sought for by the plaintiff is to declare that

the plaintiff as a tenant. Since the interest of the plaintiff has been

adequately protected as permanent injunction sought for by the plaintiff has

been granted by the trial court, this Court is of the considered view that the

lower Appellate Court, has rightly dismissed the first appeal filed by the

plaintiff. Therefore, only by adopting due procedure established in law, the

defendant can evict the appellant/plaintiff whenever any legal proceedings

has been initiated against the appellant/plaintiff by the defendant. The very

same defence in the suit which is subject matter of the first appeal has been

taken by the appellant/plaintiff in this Second Appeal also i.e he is a tenant

under the defendant.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A(MD).No.708 of 2022

3. This Court does not find any infirmity in the judgment of the courts

below and the issues raised by the appellant in the grounds of appeal have

been correctly considered by the courts below and does not call for any

interference by this Court under Section 100 C.P.C.

4. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this Second Appeal

and the same is dismissed. No costs.

13.04.2023 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No CM

To,

1.The Additional Sub-Court, Dindigul

2. The Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul.

3.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A(MD).No.708 of 2022

ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.

CM

S.A.(MD)No.708 of 2022

13.04.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis