Madras High Court
Rajeswari Ammal vs T.V.S.Mani on 2 June, 2023
A.S.No.210 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.06.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
A.S.No.210 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013
1. Rajeswari Ammal
2. Muthulakshmi .. Appellants
Versus
1. T.V.S.Mani
2. Sharmila
3. Jayanthi
4. Susila
5. Sri Sai Marble Granite,
Koyambedu,
Chennai - 600 106.
6. K.P.N.Travels
Koyambedu,
Chennai - 600 106. .. Respondents
Prayer : Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code to call
for the records pertaining to the issue of decree and judgment in
O.S.No.9253 of 2010, dated 31.08.2012 by the learned XVIII Additional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
A.S.No.210 of 2013
District and Sessions Judge, Chennai directing the dismissal of the suit and
set aside the same and thus allow the appeal.
For Appellants : No Appearance
For Respondents : Mr.K.V.Sundararajan,
for RR-1 to 4
: No Appearance for RR-5 and 6
JUDGMENT
This Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment and decree of the
learned XVIII Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chennai, dated
31.08.2012 in O.S.No.9523 of 2010, in and by which, the suit filed by the
appellants / plaintiffs for permanent injunction restraining the respondents /
defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of
all the pieces of land in all measuring 11 cents namely, 4800 sq.ft.,
comprised in T.S.No.3/1, Block No.64, Jawaharlal Nehru Road,
Koyambedu, Chennai - 600 010, which is more-fully described in the
schedule to the suit.
2. The case of the appellants / plaintiffs is that the suit schedule
property originally formed part of an extent which was owned by one
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.210 of 2013
Tarapore and Company Brick Industries. The said company was thereafter
dissolved and the land was possessed by one K.E.Arunachala Mudaliar.
The lands were occupied by many of the occupants. While so, the
Government under the The Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923
converted and issued new T.S numbers in respect of the said property. One
A.N.Annamalai, in the capacity of the Power of Attorney Agent of the said
K.E.Arunachala Mudaliar and associates, sold a portion of the property by a
registered sale deed, dated 28.10.1953 vide Doct.No.2224 of 1953 to one
Rangabashiyam. Similarly, another extent was sold on 16.06.1993 which
was registered as Doc.No.2655 of 1993 at the office of Sub-Registrar, Anna
Nagar, Chennai in favour of one Sundaramurthy. While so, the defendants
are attempting to grab the said property and in the process, they are trying to
enter into the property of the appellants / plaintiffs and disturbing their
possession. Even though the appellants / plaintiffs lodged a police
complaint, there was no action and hence the suit for permanent injunction.
3. The suit was resisted by the respondents / defendants by filing a
written statement, in and by which, it is contended that the suit property
actually belongs to Highways Department as the Government has already
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.210 of 2013
acquired the property from its original owners and since the property of the
respondents / defendants is adjacent to the property of the said Highways
Department and till the Highways Department puts the property into use,
since it was necessary for ingress and egress, permission has been given to
the respondents / defendants to use and also to fence the property.
4. On the strength of the said pleadings, the Trial Court framed two
issues:-
(i) Whether the appellants / plaintiffs are
entitled to the relief of permanent injunction?
(ii) To what relief, the appellants /
plaintiffs are entitled to?
5. On the said issues, the second appellant / plaintiff examined herself
as P.W.1 and on behalf of the appellants / plaintiffs, Exs.A-1 to A-6 were
marked. On behalf of the respondents / defendants, the first respondent /
defendant was examined as D.W.1 and Exs.B-1 to B-8 were marked. Upon
considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Trial Court
found that firstly, the appellants / plaintiffs have to establish their title to the
property and also the fact that they are in possession of the property. In the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.210 of 2013
absence of the same, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the
same, the present Appeal is filed before this Court.
6. It is the contention of the appellants / plaintiffs that the Trial Court
failed to see that the suit property is a piece of vacant land measuring 11
cents which is sought to be misused and encroached by the respondents /
defendants 1 to 3. When the respondents / defendants have openly declared
that they are not entitled to the suit property, the Trial Court ought to have
granted the injunction. It is their further contention that even though
originally there was a proposal to form a ring road, the present land in
question has been left out and therefore, when the appellants / plaintiffs are
in occupation, the Trial Court ought to have granted the injunction.
7. Opposing the above grounds, Mr.K.V.Sundararajan, learned
Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents / defendants 1 to 4, would
submit that as a matter of fact, as on date, the land itself has been taken back
by the Highways Department for its use. Further, when Ex.B-7 was
produced by the respondents / defendants, whereby, the Highways
Department had temporarily granted them permission to use the land,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.210 of 2013
pursuant to which, when the respondents / defendants have fenced the
property and as on date of the suit and during the trial, when the Trial Court
has found that the respondents / defendants were actually in possession,
there was no question of granting permanent injunction, especially when the
appellants / plaintiffs have no right, title or interest over the suit schedule
property.
8. I have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the
learned Counsel appearing for the respondents / defendants 1 to 4 and
perused the material records of the case. The point for consideration in this
Appeal Suit is whether or not the plaintiffs are entitled for an injunction
against the defendants in respect of the suit schedule property? Admittedly,
the land belongs to the Highways Department. Admittedly, as on date, it is
being utilized by the Highways Department. Therefore, there is no question
of granting permanent injunction as prayed for in the suit. Even otherwise
to pray for permanent injunction in respect of the suit land, being vacant
land, the appellants / plaintiffs had to prove their title. When the title vests
with the Government, there cannot be any injunction in respect of vacant
land as the possession of the vacant land follows the title and the appellants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.210 of 2013
/ plaintiffs can never plead that they are in possession and claim for
injunction. Accordingly, the suit is bound to fail and has been rightly
dismissed by the Trial Court.
9. In the result, this Appeal Suit in A.S.No.210 of 2013 is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
02.06.2023
Index : yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation : yes
grs
To
The XVIII Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.210 of 2013
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.,
grs
A.S.No.210 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013
02.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
