Madras High Court
M.Nachimuthu vs Maruthairaj on 9 March, 2023
S.A.(MD).No.443 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 09.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
S.A.(MD).No.443 of 2022
M.Nachimuthu ... Appellant/Appellant/Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Maruthairaj
2.The Tahsildar,
Dindigul Taluk Office,
Dindigul Town,
Dindigul District.
3.The Dindigul District Collector,
Velu nachiyar Valagam,
Thadikombu Road,
Dindigul Taluk,
Dindigul District. ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants
Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC to set aside the
judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.16 of 2015 on the file of the Additional
Sub Court, Dindigul dated 19.02.2018 by confirming the judgment and decree
passed in O.S.No.102 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Munsif,
Dindigul dated 08.11.2012 and thus allow the appeal with costs.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).No.443 of 2022
For Appellant : Mr.V.Illanchezian
For R-1 : Mr.N.S.Karthikeyan
For R-2 : Mrs.S.Jeyapriya,
Government Advocate.
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent findings of
the Courts below. The appellant is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.102 of
2008 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul. The said
suit was filed for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants
from interfering with the appellant's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
suit schedule property.
2. A counter claim was filed by the first respondent/first defendant, who
claims that he came into possession of the suit schedule property by virtue of a
B memo issued by the second respondent and he continues to remain in
possession. In the counter claim, the first respondent has sought for a
declaratory relief that the sale deed dated 07.03.2005 executed in favour of the
appellant/plaintiff has to be declared as null and void.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).No.443 of 2022
3. All the respondents/defendants have categorically pleaded in their
written statement that the appellant/plaintiff is not the owner of the suit
schedule property. The respondents 2 and 3, who are the defendants 2 and 3 in
the suit, have also categorically contended that the suit schedule property is a
Government Punja land.
4. Excepting for filing the sale deed dated 07.03.2005 standing in the
name of the appellant/plaintiff, which has been marked as Ex.A2, the
appellant/plaintiff has not filed any revenue records to show that he is in
possession of the suit schedule property as the absolute owner. The
appellant/plaintiff has filed a suit only for permanent injunction and has not
sought for any declaration of title in his favour. When there is a cloud over the
title, the plaintiff, if he is really the true owner, ought to have filed a declaratory
suit to declare himself as the absolute owner of the suit schedule property.
5. The counter claim filed by the first defendant, namely, the first
respondent herein in the suit has been allowed by the Trial Court. In the
counter claim, the first defendant has only sought for cancellation of the
plaintiff's sale deed dated 07.03.2005 and he has not sought for any declaration
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).No.443 of 2022
to declare himself as the absolute owner. Neither is the plaintiff the owner of
the property nor the first defendant in whose favour only a B memo has been
issued and one of the B memos has been marked as Ex.B6 before the Trial
Court.
6. When a categorical stand has been taken by the respondents 2 and 3
that the suit schedule property is a Government land and that too, when the
appellant/plaintiff has not sought for a declaration that he is the absolute owner
of the suit schedule property, but instead has chosen to file only a bare
injunction suit, the Trial Court has rightly rejected the contentions of the
plaintiff in the suit. The possession of the appellant/plaintiff over the suit
schedule property has also not been proved by way of any documentary
evidence by the appellant/plaintiff. Based on oral and documentary evidence,
the Trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff and
has allowed the counter claim filed by the first respondent/first defendant. The
Lower Appellate Court has also rightly confirmed the findings of the Trial
Court. Even though substantial questions of law have been raised by the
appellant in the grounds of this Second Appeal, this Court is of the considered
view that there is no substantial question of law involved in the Second Appeal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).No.443 of 2022
as the grounds raised by the appellant are only factual issues which have been
rightly considered by the Courts below based on oral and documentary
evidence.
7. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in this Second Appeal.
Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
09.03.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Lm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).No.443 of 2022
To
1.The Additional Sub Court,
Dindigul.
2.The Additional District Munsif Court,
Dindigul.
3.The Tahsildar,
Dindigul Taluk Office,
Dindigul Town,
Dindigul District.
4.The Dindigul District Collector,
Velu nachiyar Valagam,
Thadikombu Road,
Dindigul Taluk,
Dindigul District.
5.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).No.443 of 2022
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
Lm
S.A.(MD).No.443 of 2022
09.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
