Madras High Court
M.Mohamed Rafiq vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 6 June, 2025
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 06.06.2025
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
S.A.No.72 of 2009
M.Mohamed Rafiq
...Appellant / Appellant / Plaintiff
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its District Collector,
Nagapattinam District,
Nagapattinam.
2.The District Registrar,
Mayiladuthurai.
3.Mohamed Hanifa
4.Abdul Sukkur
5.Mohamed Basheer
6.Rabiyathul Bashriya
7.Subida Beevi
8.Samsunnisha
9.Badrunnisha
10.Mumtaj Begum
11.Bowsiya Begum ..Respondents / Respondents / Defendants
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:37 pm )
2
The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, against the
judgment and decree made in A.S.No.66 of 2006 dated 10.01.2008 on the
file of the Additional Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai and the judgment and
decree made in O.S.No.54 of 2004 dated 27.06.2003 on the file of the
District Munsif, Sirkali.
For Appellant : Mr.S.F.Mohamed Yousuf
For R1 & R2 : Mr.N.Muthuvel, Govt. Advocate
For R3 to R11 : No Appearance
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in O.S.No.54 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif
Court, Sirkazhi, is the appellant herein.
2.The case of the plaintiff is that he is a merchant dealing in gems in
Hongkong and that his native place is Thirukkalacherry Village in
Tharangampadi Taluk, the erstwhile Nagai Quaid E Millath District /
present Mayiladuthurai District. The first defendant is related to the plaintiff
and was born in Vietnam and is also dealing with gems and diamonds. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:37 pm )
plaintiff contends that he was forced to sign blank stamp papers and later,
the stamp papers were presented as a sale deed of the property mentioned in
the plaint, as if the plaintiff had conveyed the property to the 1st defendant.
Claiming that the documents had been signed after exercising coercion on
the plaintiff, the plaintiff had filed the suit seeking permanent injunction
restraining the 3rd defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of
the plaintiff and further restraining the 3rd defendant from registering the
document styled as sale deed dated 04.07.1996. But however, the document
had already been registered even before the institution of the suit.
3.In the written statement , the allegations in the plaint had been
denied and it had been further contended that the suit had been filed without
seeking the relief to set aside the sale deed.
4.By judgment dated 27.06.2005, the learned District Munsif at
Sirkazhi had dismissed the suit. The plaintiff filed A.S.No.66 of 2006. By
judgment dated 10.01.2008 the Additional Sub Court at Mayiladuthurai had
also dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff then had filed the present Second
Appeal on 24.04.2008. It came up for admission on 27.01.2009, on which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:37 pm )
date, a learned Single Judge had directed notice returnable by four weeks.
Thereafter, the Second Appeal was listed only on 30.04.2015, on which
date, the learned counsel for the appellant was directed to pay batta to the
unserved respondents. The Second Appeal had not been admitted and the
substantial questions of law had not been framed.
5.A perusal of the records show that the suit had been filed seeking
permanent injunction restraining the 3rd defendant from interfering with the
peaceful possession of the plaintiff over the suit schedule property and for a
further injunction restraining the 3rd defendant / Sub Registrar office from
registering the document presented as sale deed. As a matter of fact, in the
averments in the plaint, the plaintiff had stated that he had raised a protest at
the time of registration, but that the registration had been done and the
document had been registered. Once the document is registered, necessarily,
the plaintiff will have to seek a relief of declaration that the said document
is null and void and not binding on him.
6.The plaintiff had not amended the plaint to seek that particular
relief. The plaintiff is not entitled for injunction since, very categorically,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:37 pm )
both the Courts below had found that the 1st defendant had been put in
possession and the 1st defendant had also leased out the property to third
parties. The plaintiff is thus not in possession. The first relief therefore fails
since the plaintiff is not in possession and therefore, injunction cannot be
granted in favour of the plaintiff. The second relief also fails since the
documents had been registered in manner known to law. A presumption
arises that any official act done by a public servant had been done in proper
manner. No relief had been sought by the plaintiff to set aside the sale deed.
No substantial questions of law arises for consideration. The Second Appeal
stands dismissed. No costs.
06.06.2025
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
smv
To
1.The Additional Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai
2.The District Munsif Court, Sirkali.
3.The Section Officer,
VR Section, Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:37 pm )
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
Smv
06.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 13/06/2025 04:10:37 pm )
