Madras High Court
M.Veera Perumal vs S.Jothi on 14 June, 2023
S.A(MD).No.293 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 14.06.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
S.A.(MD)No.293 of 2023
and C.M.P(MD)No.6764 of 2023
M.Veera Perumal ... Appellant/Appellant/Defendant
Vs.
S.Jothi ... Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff
Prayer : Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil
Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 24.01.2023 passed in
A.S.No.06 of 2021 on the file of the Sub Court, Periyakulam, confirming
the judgment and decree dated 02.03.2021 passed in O.S. No.97 of 2013 on
the file of the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Appadurai
For Respondent : Mr.George Raja
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent
findings of the courts below. The defendant in the suit is the appellant
herein. The respondent is the plaintiff in the said suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD).No.293 of 2023
2. In the forthcoming paragraphs, the parties are described as per their
litigative status in the suit.
3. The suit in O.S.No.97 of 2013 was filed by the plaintiff for
permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The
plaintiff claimed that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property
by virtue of a sale deed date 09.07.2012 registered as document No.
2103/2012 which is marked as Ex.A.4 before the trial court. The plaintiff
has also traced his title over the suit schedule property in the following
manner:
a) Originally, the suit schedule property was owned by Chandran,
who had purchased the same from Srinivasan under sale deeds dated
17.11.2011 and 23.01.2012 and the said documents were registered as
document Nos.3702/2011 and 226/2012 respectively. They were
marked as Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.2 respectively before the trial court.
b) Thereafter, Chandran, who became the owner under the aforesaid
sale deeds, executed a gift settlement deed dated 30.01.2012 in favour
of his wife Chitra, which is marked as Ex.A.3. Chitra has sold the suit
schedule property to the plaintiff under the sale deed dated
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD).No.293 of 2023
09.07.2012, registered as document No.2103/2012 and the said
document was marked as Ex.A.4. The plaintiff claimed that ever since
his purchase, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit
schedule property. However, according to the plaintiff, the defendant
is interfering with his peaceful and enjoyment of the suit schedule
property. In such circumstances, the suit in O.S.No.97 of 2013 came
to be filed by the plaintiff seeking permanent injunction.
4. However, as seen from the written statement filed by the defendant,
he claimed that he was put in possession of the suit schedule property only
with the permission of Chandran, the predecessor in title of the plaintiff.
According to him, the predecessor in title of the suit schedule property
namely, Chandran and himself were the promoters of the suit schedule
property as well as other neighbouring properties. According to the
defendant, he was put in possession of the suit schedule property by
Chandran and he has been running a Timber Depot in the suit schedule
property even before the plaintiff purchased the suit schedule property
under the sale deed dated 09.07.2012 (Ex.A.4). However, according to him,
without following the due process of law, the plaintiff is attempting to
dispossess the defendant from the suit schedule property and has falsely
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD).No.293 of 2023
filed the suit as if the plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property.
According to the defendant, the suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent
injunction is not maintainable as the defendant is in possession of the suit
schedule property and not the plaintiff as pleaded in the plaint.
5. Based on the pleadings of the respective parties, the trial court
namely, the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam, in O.S.No.97 of 2013
framed the following issues:
a) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent
injunction?
b) Whether the suit schedule property is in possession of the
plaintiff?
c) To what other reliefs?
6.i) Before the trial court, the plaintiff had filed four documents,
which are marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4, through which the plaintiff traced
his title over the suit schedule property. They are as follows:
Ex.A.1 17.11.2011 Sale Deed-3702/211 Original
Ex.A.2 23.01.2012 Sale Deed-226/2012 Original
Ex.A.3 30.01.2012 Gift Settlement No.336/2012 Original
Ex.A.4 09.07.2012 Plaintiff's Registered Sale Original
Deed 2103/2012
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD).No.293 of 2023
On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff herself was examined as P.W.1.
6.ii) On the side of the defendant, he had filed 14 documents, which
were marked as Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.14. They are as follows:
Ex.B.1 Layout Sketch issued from the Certified Copy
Town Panchayat
Ex.B.2 Approval granted to S.No.63/1 Certified Copy
Ex.B.3 11.01.2011 Gist Receipt and Development Certified Copy
Charge Receipt to S.No.63/1B
which was paid by the
defendant
Ex.B.4 25.06.2010 General Power of Attorney Certified Copy
Ex.B.5 07.07.2010 Sale deed executed in favour Certified copy of
of Arockiam the Sub Registrar
Ex.B.6 12.07.2010 Sale Deed Certified Copy
Ex.B.7 12.07.2010 Sale Deed Certified Copy
Ex.B.8 12.07.2010 Sale Deed Certified Copy
Ex.B.9 06.09.2010 Sale Deed Certified Copy
Ex.B.10 Labour Tax Receipt 7 paid for
Om Muruga Timber Shop
Ex.B.11 Labour Tax Receipts 9 Nos. Original
paid till 2012-2013 for Om
Muruga Timber Shop
Ex.B.12 Sketch of the suit schedule
property
Ex.B.13 29.10.2011 Sale agreement Xerox
Ex.B.14 General Power Deed Original
The defendant himself was examined as D.W.1.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD).No.293 of 2023
7. Based on the oral and documentary evidence, the trial court by its
judgment and decree dated 02.03.2021 in O.S.No.97 of 2013 decreed the
suit in favour of the plaintiff by granting the relief of permanent injunction
by giving the following findings:
a) The plaintiff has proved his title over the suit schedule property
and that she is in possession of the same by producing the documents
Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4;
b) Possession follows title and hence, the plaintiff is entitled for the
relief of permanent injunction;
c) The documents filed by the defendant which are marked as
Ex.B.10 to Ex.B.14, which includes certain tax receipts standing in
the name of the defendant, are all the documents which are obtained
by the defendant subsequent to the filing of the suit and are
suspicious in nature. Ex.B.10 tax receipt also stands in the name of
Ravindran not in the name of the defendant.
d) Even though the defendant has pleaded that he is running a Timber
Depot in the suit schedule property, the defendant has not produced
any license to prove that he is running the same in the suit schedule
property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD).No.293 of 2023
8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court namely,
the District Munsif Court, Periyakulam, dated 02.03.2021 in O.S.No.97 of
2013, the defendant in the suit filed a first appeal before the Sub Court,
Periyakulam in A.S.No.06 of 2021.
9. The lower Appellate Court by its judgment and decree dated
24.01.2023, also confirmed the findings of the trial court by dismissing the
first appeal filed by the defendant. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of
the courts below, this Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant in the
suit.
10. Admittedly, the plaintiff has proved his title over the suit schedule
property by producing his original registered sale deed dated 09.07.2012
(Ex.A.4) and he has also traced his title through Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3. Ex.A.1 is
the sale deed dated 17.11.2011 and Ex.A.2 is the sale deed dated 23.01.2012
and under those two sale deeds, Srinivasan had sold the suit schedule
property to Chandran. Thereafter, Chandran has executed a gift settlement
deed dated 30.01.2012(Ex.A.3) in favour of his wife in respect of the suit
schedule property. Chandran's wife, who became the owner of the suit
schedule property by virtue of a gift settlement deed dated 30.01.2012, has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD).No.293 of 2023
sold the suit schedule property to the plaintiff under a sale deed dated
09.07.2012 (Ex.A.4).
11. Admittedly, the defendant has not produced any revenue records
to show that he is in possession of the suit schedule property. He has also
not produced any document to show that the plaintiff has put him in
possession of the suit schedule property. Even though he contends that he
was put in possession of the suit schedule property by the plaintiff's
predecessor in title namely, Chandran, he has not filed any documentary
evidence to prove the same. The tax receipts produced by the defendant
(Ex.B.10 and Ex.B.11) are dated subsequent to the filing of the suit. The
trial court has rightly held that those documents are fabricated documents.
The trial court has given a finding that possession follows title in favour of
the plaintiff who has purchased the suit schedule property under a registered
sale deed (Ex.A.4) and he has also traced his title through registered
documents. This Court does not find any infirmity in the said finding. The
defendant has claimed that he is running a Timber Depot in the suit
schedule property but no documentary evidence in the form of license or
any other valid document has been produced by him to show that he is
running a Timber Depot. The plaintiff has categorically denied that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD).No.293 of 2023
defendant is running a Timber Depot. When no iota of evidence has been
produced by the defendant to prove that he is in possession of the suit
schedule property, the trial court based on the evidence available on record
has rightly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff by granting the relief of
permanent injunction as prayed for in the suit.
12. The defendant has also not till date challenged the sale deed dated
09.07.2012 (Ex.A.4) standing in the name of the plaintiff despite lapse of
almost 10 years from the date of filing of the suit by the plaintiff. The trial
court as well as the lower Appellate Court by concurrent findings have
taken into consideration the afore mentioned factors and have rightly held
that the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed
for in the suit.
13. The substantial questions of law raised by the appellant/defendant
in the grounds of this Second Appeal are all issues, which have already been
considered by the courts below correctly only in accordance with law. There
are no debatable issues of fact or law involved which requires further
consideration by this Court under Section 100 C.P.C.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD).No.293 of 2023
14. In the result, there is no merit in this Second Appeal. Accordingly,
this Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
14.06.2023
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
CM
To
1.The Sub Court, Periyakulam,
2. The District Munsif Court, Periyakulam.
3.The Section Officer,
VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD).No.293 of 2023
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
CM
S.A.(MD)No.293 of 2023
and C.M.P(MD)No.6764 of 2023
14.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
