Madras High Court
Maniammal vs Thoppalan (Died) on 3 January, 2023
S.A.No.346 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.01.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
S.A.No.346 of 2006
Maniammal ... Appellant/Appellant/Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Thoppalan (died)
2.T.Sivasami
3.T.Rajendran
4.Selvarani
5.Dhanalakshmi
6.T.Karunanidhi ...Respondents/Respondent/Defendant
(R1 died. Respondents 2 to 6 were brought on record as the legal
representatives of the deceased 1st respondent vide order of this Court
dated 16.09.2022 made in C.M.P.Nos.1866, 1867 and 1868 of 2010 in
S.A.No.346 of 2006 by KRJ)
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.346 of 2006
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of
Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 01.04.2003 in
A.S.No.200 of 2002 on the file of the learned District Judge,
Perambalur, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 29.01.1993
in O.S.No.432 of 1992 on the file of the learned Additional District
Munsif, Ariyalur, Perambalur District.
For Appellant : Mr.B.Balavijayan
for Mr.S.Mani
For Respondents : Mr.B.Sivagamasundari
for R2 to R6
R1 – died
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff is the appellant before this Court. The parties are
referred to in the same rank and array as before the trial Court.
2.The facts in brief are as follows:
The plaintiff had originally filed a suit O.S.No.619 of 1988 on
the file of the learned District Munsif, Peramballur, which was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.346 of 2006
subsequently transferred to the file of the learned Additional District
Munsif, Ariyalur, Perambalur District and re-numbered as O.S.No.432
of 1992. The suit was filed for a bare injunction restraining the
defendant, his men, agents, servants and heirs from in any manner
interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of
the suit property. The property in question was an extent of 2 acres
out of a total extent of 7.08 acres in S.No.414/2 situate at Kalpadi
Village, Permbalur Taluk, Trichy District. It is the case of the plaintiff
that a larger extent of land previously belonged to Alagappa Kounder
@ Alaga Kounder as his ancestral properties. It is his further case that
after the demise of the said Alagappa Kounder, his only son
Ramasamy became entitled to the entire property in S.No.414/2. The
plaintiff's husband and the defendants herein had attempted to
interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit survey
number and therefore, the said Ramasamy had filed O.S.No.239 of
1986 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Perambalur, for
permanent injunction. The suit was decreed on 10.12.1987. During
the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff purchased the suit property from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.346 of 2006
the said Ramasamy under a registered Sale Deed dated 30.07.1986.
Eversince the purchase, she has been in exclusive possession and
enjoyment of the same. As the plaintiff's husband had a property
abutting the suit property on the West and in order to have a combined
possession and enjoyment, the plaintiff had purchased the property.
3.The defendant was aggrieved that while the suit O.S.No.239 of
1986 filed by Ramasamy against the plaintiff's husband and him was
pending, Ramasamy had sold the property to the plaintiff. Therefore,
he started interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit property. The defendant had attempted to
trespass into the property and the plaintiff had thwarted the same. The
defendant is a highly influential person enjoying political clout and the
plaintiff apprehends that he may be succeed in entering the suit
property. Therefore, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit in
question.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.346 of 2006
4.This suit was resisted by the defendant inter alia denying the
contentions contained in the Plaint. The defendant would submit that
the decree in O.S.No.239 of 1986 is an ex parte decree and the
defendant had already taken steps to set aside the ex parte decree in
O.S.No.239 of 1986. It is the further contention of the defendant that
the said Ramasamy did not own a single cent of land in S.No.414/2, as
the said Ramasamy's father had already sold the entire extent. The
defendant would contend that the suit property and a further extent of
36 cents belonged to one Perumal Kounder who purchased it under an
oral sale from Alaga Kounder. The defendant has purchased the suit
property from the said Lakshmana Kounder under a Sale Deed dated
25.08.1952. From the date of his purchase, he is in possession.
Therefore, the suit should be dismissed.
5.The trial Court had framed the following issues:
"(1)tHf;fpil brhj;J thjpapd;
mDnghfj;jpy; cs;sjh?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.346 of 2006
(2)tHf;Ff;F tHf;FK:yk; cz;lh?
(3)thjpf;F fpilf;Fk; epthuzk; vd;d?"
6.The above suit was tried along with another suit O.S.No.151
of 1992. Recording of the evidence was made in O.S.No.151 of 1992.
The plaintiff in O.S.No.151 of 1992 had examined himself as PW1
and had marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6. The plaintiff in O.S.No.432 of
1992 had examined herself as PW2. On the side of the defendant, the
2nd defendant in O.S.No.151 of 1992 was examined as DW1 and the
4th defendant in the said suit was examined as DW2. Ex.B.1 to Ex.B22
were marked and that apart, the Commissioner's Report and the Plan
were marked as Ex.C.1 and Ex.C2. The defendant in O.S.No.432 of
1992 had not entered the box to adduce evidence.
7.The trial Court on considering the evidence on record came to
the conclusion that the appellant had not proved the possession of the
property whereas the defendants had produced documents to show
their continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.346 of 2006
property. Challenging the said Judgment and Decree, the plaintiff had
filed A.S.No.200 of 2002 on the file of the learned District Judge,
Perambalur. The learned Judge also held that the plaintiff has not
proved the possession and proceeded to confirm the Judgment and
Decree of the Courts below. Challenging the same, the appellant is
before this Court.
8.The Second Appeal was admitted on the following Substantial
Questions of Law:
"(1)Whether the Courts below are correct in
holding that the plaintiff has not proved his posession
ignoring Chitta and Adangal, i,e., plaintiff 's docuemnts,
ex.P.1 to Ex.P.6?
(2)Whether the Courts below are justified in
ignoring the Chitta and Adangal of the appellant,
particularly, when the respondent has not proved title to
the property as against Sale Deed, Ex.P.5?"
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.346 of 2006
9.Mr.B.Balavijayan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
would submit that both the Courts below have totally overlooked the
documents filed by the plaintiff to prove the possession. He would
contend that Ex.A.1 – Patta, Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.4 – Adangal standing in
the name of the plaintiff/vendor would show that the property is in her
possession. He would further contend that the plaintiff had filed
Ex.A.5 which is the document under which she has purchased the suit
property. The suit being one for bare injunction, the Courts below
ought to have decreed the suit considering the above documents.
10.Per contra, Mrs.B.Sivagamasundari, learned counsel
appearing for the respondents would submit that the plaintiff has not
produced any document to show possession as on the date of the filing
of the suit. The documents that have been filed relate to the periods
1982, 1983 and 1984 and no documents have been filed subsequent to
her purchase by the plaintiff. However, on the contrary, the
defendants have filed Kist receipts starting from the year 1965 to show
their continuous possession of the suit property. She would therefore
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.346 of 2006
submit that both the Courts below have considered the evidence
properly before dismissing the suit and this Court sitting in Second
Appeal cannot re-appreciat the evidence.
11.Heard the learned counsels appearing on either side and
perused the papers.
12.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for
the defendant, the plaintiff claims to be in possession and enjoyment
of the property pursuant to the Sale of the year 1986 and produced
Ex.A.5 - Sale Deed dated 30.07.1986. The plaintiff has not produced
any document whatsoever to show possession of the property from the
date of purchase till the filing of the suit thereafter. The revenue
records that have been filed as Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.4 stand in the name of
Alagappa Kounder and there is no explanation as to why the records
have not been mutated in the name of the plaintiff. On the contrary,
the defendants have filed documents to show their possession and
enjoyment of the suit property by filing Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.18 which are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.346 of 2006
the revenue records, all of which stand in the name of the defendants.
The suit in question is one for bare injunction, the plaintiff in order to
obtain a decree for injunction has to necessarily prove possession of
the property. Proof of possession is a sine quo non for obtaining a
decree for injunction. The plaintiff in the instant case has miserably
failed to prove the same. Therefore, the Substantial Questions of Law
1 and 2 are answered against the appellant.
The Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
03.01.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking order / Non speaking order
mps
To
1.The District Judge,
Perambalur.
2.The Additional District Munsif,
Ariyalur,
Perambalur District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.346 of 2006
P.T. ASHA, J,
mps
S.A.No.346 of 2006
03.01.2023
(2/2)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.346 of 2006
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.346 of 2006
C.M.P.No.2221 of 2020
in
S.A.No.346 of 2006
P.T. ASHA, J,
The above Civil Miscellaneous
Petition has been filed for receiving
additional documents.
2.A perusal of the documents
would clearly indicate that all of them
have come into existence after the
filing of the suit. The suit was filed in
the year 1992 and the documents that
sought to be filed are Kist receipts
from the year 1997, 1998, 2002 and
2003, totally numbering 5. Since these
documents opposed the filing of the
suit the same cannot be received in
evidence and accordingly, this Civil
Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.
03.01.2023
(½)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.346 of 2006
mps
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
