Madras High Court
Karuppiah vs Gunasekaran on 29 March, 2023
S.A.(MD)No.175 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
S.A.(MD)No.175 of 2023
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.3740 of 2023
1.Karuppiah
2.K.Ponnusamy
3.Vellaisamy
4.Arumugam ... Appellants
/Vs./
1.Gunasekaran
2.Alaguraj ... Respondents
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 30.11.2021 made in
A.S.No.120 of 2017 on the file of the Sub Court, Aranthangi confirming
the Judgment and decree dated 19.01.2017 made in O.S.No.18 of 2006
on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi and allow this
Second Appeal pending on the file of this Court.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.175 of 2023
For Appellants : Mr.S.Mani
For Respondents : Mr.K.Paranjothi
JUDGMENT
This second appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent
findings of the Courts below. The defendants in the suit are the
appellants herein. The suit in O.S.No.18 of 2006 was filed by the
respondents / plaintiffs on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Aranthangi, for permanent injunction to restrain the appellants /
defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment
of the suit schedule property. The trial Court decreed the suit in favour
of the respondents / plaintiffs, by its judgment and decree dated
19.01.2017.
2. Before the trial Court, the respondents / plaintiffs had filed 21
documents, which were marked as Exs.A1 to A21. On the side of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.175 of 2023
appellants / defendants, they had filed only one document, namely,
settlement register dated 15.09.1972, which has been marked as Ex.B1,
which is not standing in the name of the appellants / defendants. The
appellants / defendants claimed that Ex.B1 stands in the name of their
ancestors. On the side of the respondents / plaintiffs, five witnesses were
also examined namely, P.W.1 to P.W.5 and on the side of the appellants /
defendants, two witnesses were examined namely, P.W.1 and P.W.2.
3. As seen from the exhibits marked on the side of the
respondents / plaintiffs, they have filed chitta, adangal and land tax
receipts from the year 2000 onwards. They have also filed a sale deed
dated 01.07.1974 marked as Ex.A1 and a will dated 16.09.2004 marked
as Ex.A2. The chitta, adangal and land tax receipts for the suit schedule
property all stand in the name of the respondents / plaintiffs. The only
document filed by the appellants / defendants, which was marked as
Ex.B1, which is dated 15.09.1972, namely, the settlement register copy
also does not stand in the name of the appellants / defendants. But the
appellants / defendants claim that it stands in the name of their ancestors.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.175 of 2023
4. The respondents / plaintiffs have filed a suit only for permanent
injunction to restrain the appellants / defendants from interfering with
their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
Having filed documentary evidence to establish their possession over the
suit schedule property, the trial Court has rightly decreed the suit in
favour of the respondents / plaintiffs based on the oral and documentary
evidence available on record.
5. Though the appellants / defendants may have pleaded in their
written statement that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule
property, when undisputed documentary evidence has been produced by
the respondents / plaintiffs to prove their possession, necessarily the trial
Court will have to grant the relief as prayed for in the plaint by the
respondents / plaintiffs, ie., grant the relief of permanent injunction in
their favour to restrain the appellants / defendants from interfering with
their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
6. This Court is of the considered view that the trial Court has
rightly decreed the suit in favour of the respondents / plaintiffs based on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.175 of 2023
the oral and documentary evidence available on record. No counter
claim has also been filed by the appellants / defendants in the suit to
declare that they are the absolute owners of the suit schedule property.
They have also not filed any documentary evidence before the trial Court
to substantiate their claim that they are the owners of the suit schedule
property, though they may contend in their written statement as well as
before this Court that they are the absolute owners. The lower appellate
Court has also rightly confirmed the findings of the trial Court in the
First Appeal filed by the appellants / defendants before the Sub Court,
Aranthangi in A.S.No.120 of 2017 by dismissing the first appeal. There
are no substantial questions of law involved in this Second Appeal and
the issues that have been raised in this second appeal by the appellants /
defendants have been rightly considered by the Courts below.
7. If at all the appellants / defendants are the rightful owners of the
suit schedule property, their remedy is to file a suit for declaration to
declare that they are the absolute owners. When admittedly the
respondents / plaintiffs are in possession of the suit schedule property,
they can be evicted, even if the title of the suit schedule property is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.175 of 2023
vested with the appellants / defendants, only by due process of law. The
respondents / plaintiffs cannot be treated as trespassers, as they have
produced documentary evidence before the trial Court, especially when
they are in legal possession of the suit schedule property.
8. This Court does not find any merit in this second appeal and
accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed. However, liberty is
granted to the appellants / defendants, if they so desire to file a suit for
declaration to declare their title over the suit schedule property in the
manner known to them under law. There shall be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
29.03.2023
Index : Yes / No
NCC : Yes / No
Sm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.175 of 2023
TO:
1.The Sub Court, Aranthangi.
2.The District Munsif Court, Aranthangi.
3.The Section Officer,
VR Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD)No.175 of 2023
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
Sm
Judgment made in
S.A.(MD)No.175 of 2023
Dated:
29.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
