Madras High Court
Singaravelu vs Balasubramanian on 8 April, 2024
S.A(MD)No.44 of 2016
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 08.04.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
S.A(MD)No.44 of 2016
Singaravelu ...Appellant
-Vs-
1.Balasubramanian
2.Kunjari Manoharan
3.Manonmani
4.Ramamoorthy
5.Ezhil Arasi
6.Kala alias Kalaiselvi
7.Rajarajachozhan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.123 of 2010 on
the file of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli, dated
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.44 of 2016
20.06.2011 confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.74 of 1998 on
the file of the District Munsif Court, Musiri, dated 11.09.2009.
For Appellant : Mr.M.P.Senthil
For Respondents : No appearance
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in the suit for bare injunction, is the appellant. The said
suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the findings of the trial Court were
confirmed by the first appellate Court. Challenging the same, the
appellant/plaintiff is before this Court.
2.According to the plaintiff, the suit property originally belongs to one
Dhanalakshmiammal. The respondents herein are legal representatives of the said
Dhanalakshmiammal. The suit was originally filed against the
Dhanalakshmiammal and she died pending suit and therefore, the respondents
were brought on record as her legal representatives. It is the case of the
plaintiff/appellant that he along with his father and his brother engaged in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
cultivation of the suit property on tenancy arrangement by contributing physical
tenancy arrangement. The respondents attempted to interfere with his tenancy
right and hence, he was constrained to file a suit for bare injunction.
3.The respondents filed a written statement denying the claim made by the
appellant as if he was a cultivating tenant of the suit property. It was also stated
by the respondents that earlier the deceased Dhanalakshmi filed a suit for bare
injunction against the father of the appellant and his brother Raju and the said suit
was decreed and the findings in that suit was confirmed by this Court in second
appeal. It was also stated that the father of the appellant moved the Record
Officer under the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Lands Record of Tenancy Rights Act
for recording his name as a cultivating tenant and the same was dismissed by the
Record Officer. The findings rendered by the Record Officer was confirmed in
statutory appeals and thereafter, by this Court in W.P(MD)No.5691 of 1981. It
was also stated that the appellant, his father and his brother were living only as a
joint family and the present suit filed by the appellant is barred by the findings
rendered in the earlier suit as well as writ petition.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.The trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence came to
the conclusion that the appellant failed to establish his right over the suit property
as cultivating tenant. The Court below also rendered a finding that the finding
recorded in the earlier suit filed by the deceased Dhanalakshmiammal against the
father of the appellant and his brother would bar the present suit filed by the
appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred an appeal before the
first appellate Court in A.S.No.123 of 2010 on the file of Second Additional Sub
Court, Trichy. The first appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court.
Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court.
5.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the
appellant substantiated his right over the suit property by producing Ex.A1 to
Ex.A5 and also the evidence of P.W.2 and the same has not been taken into
consideration by the Courts below in a proper perspective. The learned counsel
further submitted that the findings in the earlier litigation to which the appellant
was not a party would not bind him and hence, the Courts below committed an
error in coming to a conclusion that finding in the earlier litigation between the
Dhanalakshmiammal and the father of the appellant and his brother, would bar the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
present suit.
6.The appellant herein claims to be in possession of the suit property as a
cultivating tenant under the respondents. In order to prove the tenancy
arrangement and his possession as tenant, the appellant has not produced any
evidence before the Courts below. In fact, the Land Tax Receipts produced by the
appellants Ex.A1 to Ex.A4 stand in the name of the appellant's father
Annavimuthuraj, who suffered a decree in the earlier litigation. Ex.A5 is the
letter written by the first respondent to the appellant's father Annavimuthuraj.
Therefore, the appellant failed to lead any evidence before the Courts below to
show his independent cultivating tenancy rights over the suit property. Therefore,
the Courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to
establish his independent cultivating tenancy rights over the suit property and
dismissed the suit.
7.Moreover, the respondents' predecessor in interest, namely,
Dhanalakshmiammal laid a suit for bare injunction restraining the appellant's
father Annavimuthuraj and his brother Raju and the said suit was decreed in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
favour of Dhanalakshmiammal and the findings in that suit was confirmed by this
Court in the second appeal. The documents relating to the earlier litigations were
marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B5. When the appellant was examined as P.W.1, he clearly
stated that he was living along with his father and his brother and they had been
cultivating the suit property jointly. In such circumstances, the plea of
independent tenancy set up by the appellant gets falsified by the admission of
P.W.1. The decree passed against the father of the appellant would certainly bind
the appellant, when he is not able to show any independent right. In these
circumstances, this Court does not find anything to interfere with the findings of
fact rendered by the Courts below.
8.In fine, the Second Appeal is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances,
there will be no order as to costs.
08.04.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
cp
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Second Additional Subordinate Judge,
Tiruchirapalli.
2.The District Munsif,
Musiri.
3.The Record Keeper,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
cp
08.04.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
