Madras High Court
G. Ramesh vs E. Tamil Thendral on 14 November, 2025
S.A.No.672 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 20.08.2025
Pronounced on 14.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
S.A.No.672 of 2021 and
C.M.P. No.13496 of 2021
G. Ramesh ...Appellant
Vs.
E. Tamil Thendral ...Respondent
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908 against the
judgment and decree dated 05.03.2021 passed in A.S. No.16 of 2018, on
the file of the Subordinate Court, Vaniyambadi, Vellore District,
confirming the Judgment and decree dated 04.07.2018 passed in
O.S.No.137 of 2015, on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Vaniyambadi.
Page 1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:44:25 pm )
S.A.No.672 of 2021
For Appellant : Mr. K. Umar
For Respondent : Mr.PA. Sudesh Kumar
for M/s. Sun Associates
JUDGMENT
In this Second Appeal, the judgment and decree dated 05.03.2021
passed in A.S. No.16 of 2018, on the file of the Subordinate Court,
Vaniyambadi, Vellore District, confirming the Judgment and decree dated
04.07.2018 passed in O.S.No.137 of 2015, on the file of the District
Munsif Court, Vaniyambadi.
2. The appellant/defendant who lost his case before the courts
below, is the appellant herein. The respondent/plaintiff has filed a suit in
O.S. No.137/2015 on the file of District Munsif, Vaniyampadi for
permanent injunction as against the defendant from damaging or putting up
construction over the suit property without the permission of the plaintiff.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:44:25 pm )
their ranking in the trial court.
4. The case of the plaintiff in the above suit is that one Thahir
Ahmed Sahib and his wife Ashrafunisa Begum jointly purchased the suit
property vide sale deed dated 16.08.1982 and were in joint possession and
enjoyment over the said property by paying property tax to the
Vaniyambadi Municipality. The defendant was a tenant under them whose
tenancy was terminated from 30.07.2015. On 15.07.2015, the plaintiff
purchased the suit property and took possession of the same on the same
day. From 01.08.2015 onwards, the defendant became a tenant under the
plaintiff for a monthly rent of Rs.4,000/- by virtue of oral tenancy
agreement. The plaintiff is paying property tax for the suit property. While
so, the defendant demolished the wall on the western side of the suit
property and started constructing a new wall without the permission of the
plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file the above suit for
injunction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:44:25 pm )
5. The claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendant by stating
that the plaintiff do not have any right or interest in the suit property.
There is no landlord tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the
defendant. The defendant had paid advance money to Thahir Ahmed on
various dates and the said Thahir Ahmed demanded further advance of
Rs.5,00,000/- on 10.06.2015 and threatened him to vacate. Hence, the
defendant filed a suit in O.S. No.113/2015 and obtained an order of
injunction against the said Thahir Ahmed and the plaintiff. By stating that
there is no cause of action in the present suit, prayed for dismissal of the
suit.
6. The trial court, after analysing the oral and documentary
evidence, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, against which the
defendant preferred an appeal in A.S. No.16/2018 before the Sub Court,
Vaniyambadi and the same was also dismissed. Challenging the same, the
present Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:44:25 pm )
7. The second Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial
questions of law:
a) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff is maintainable, where the
plaintiff had purchased the vacant land through Ex.A3 and evaded
the stamp duty and registration fee by suppressing the existence of
superstructure and seeking the relief for superstructure?
b) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree for a the equitable
relief of permanent injunction, when there is a finding by the
appellate court that the plaintiff had evaded stamp duty and
registration fees?
c) Whether the courts below are right in decreeing the suit without
framing an issue and rendering a finding that the plaintiff had
proved the existence of landlord tenant relationship, when the
defendant had taken a specific stand that he is not the tenant of the
plaintiff?"
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:44:25 pm )
8. The learned counsel for the appellant / defendant submits that the
plaintiff / respondent failed to establish the jural relationship between the
plaintiff and the defendant as landlord and tenant. The first appellate court
having rendered a finding that the plaintiff has suppressed the availability
of building in Ex.A3 sale deed in order to evade the payment of stamp duty
and registration charges ought not to have granted the relief of injunction
in favour of the plaintiff which resulted in miscarriage of justice. He would
further submit that the sale deed under Ex.A3 is inadmissible in evidence
for want of payment of stamp duty and registration and that Ex.A3 sale
deed is only a sham transaction. His further submission is that there is
nothing on record to show that the defendant had demolished the western
wall as mentioned in the plaint. His further contention is that, the
respondent plaintiff ought to have approached the Rent Control Court that
has exclusive jurisdiction to entertain the suit. Therefore, the decree passed
by the Civil Court, having no jurisdiction, it is nullity. To support his
contentions, he has relied on the following decisions of the Hon'ble
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:44:25 pm )
Supreme Court.
1. Sushil Kumar Mehta vs. Gobind Ram Bohra (dead) through his
Lrs. reported in (1990) 1 SCC 193
2. Vidya Dhar and Others vs. Multi Screen Media Private Limited
reported in (2013) 10 SCC 145.
Hence prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the
courts below.
9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent /
plaintiff submits that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff under
Ex.A3 dated 15.07.2015 and took possession of the property on the same
day. The defendant was inducted as a tenant under the plaintiff from
01.08.2015 for a monthly rent of Rs.4,000/-. While so, the defendant
without the permission of the plaintiff demolished the western side wall of
the suit property and started constructing a new wall which compelled the
plaintiff to file the above suit. The courts below after appreciating the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:44:25 pm )
materials on record rightly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff which
warrants any interference by this Court.
10. Heard on both sides. Records perused.
11. The first and foremost contention of the appellant / defendant is
that in Ex.A3 sale deed, the existence of the superstructure was suppressed
and therefore, the plaintiff cannot claim any right over the suit property
under Ex.A3 sale deed which requires stamp duty and registration. It is not
in dispute that in Ex.A3 sale deed the existence of the superstructure is not
mentioned. However, the existence of the building in the suit property is
not denied by the defendant. In fact, in RCOP 31/2015 filed by the
defendant for depositing the monthly rent by invoking provision of Section
8(5) of Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1960,
admitted the plaintiff's vendor as landlord and that he is a tenant under
him. The defendant had also filed a suit in O.S. No.113/2015 against
Thahir Ahmed Sahib, not to evict him from the petition premises without
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:44:25 pm )
due process of law. Now it has to be seen whether the suppression of the
existence of the superstructure in the suit property can be questioned by
the defendant. The defendant's case is that the plaintiff is not having any
right over the suit property by virtue of Ex.A3 sale deed dated 15.07.2015.
As rightly pointed out by the trial court, the defendant has no locus standi
to dispute the sale transaction between Thahir Ahmed Sahib and the
plaintiff and that the defendant is liable to accept the plaintiff as owner
after receiving the notice from the erstwhile owner under Ex.B1 which was
marked in RCOP No.31/2015, directing the defendant to pay the rent to
the plaintiff. The defendant cannot question the validity of the sale deed in
favour of the plaintiff for not mentioning the existence of the
superstructure. In the above suit, the dispute is only with regard to the
alleged constructions made by the defendant without the permission of the
plaintiff. The first appellate court has categorically held that the report and
photographs marked as Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 clearly indicates about the new
wall constructed with hallow bricks. The defendant failed to establish that
with prior permission from the plaintiff or from his previous owner he had
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:44:25 pm )
made the above constructions. The tenant's ability to question the
landlord's title, including the specifics of a sale deed, is generally very
limited due to the principle of estoppel under Section 116 of the Indian
Evidence Act. A tenant cannot challenge the validity of a registered sale
deed between the previous landlord and the new owner. The tenant's right
is to occupy the property as per the existing lease agreement, not to
question the landlord's title or the details of the sale transaction. The
specific issue of the sale deed 'not showing the building' (presumably an
omission or an error in the property description) is unlikely to give the
tenant legal standing to invalidate the sale. The tenancy continues under
the new owner by operation of law (Section 109 of the Transfer of
Property Act), and the new owner 'steps into the shoes' of the old landlord.
Under Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, a tenant is generally
'estopped' or barred from denying the landlord's title during the
continuance of their tenancy. A tenant can only challenge the sale deed
under very specific, limited circumstances which generally relate to defects
in the transfer itself, on standard legal ground such as fraud, coercion,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:44:25 pm )
forgery, if the seller had no legal title to transfer and not usually the
property description. Moreover, while an error in the property description
might be a ground for the buyer or seller to seek rectification deed or
challenge the sale in certain scenarios, it generally would not give the
tenant a right to question the entire transactions validity, unless it is part of
a larger claim of fraud that affects their specific, pre-existing legal rights,
e.g. if the sale deed fraudulently excluded the tenanted building to
facilitate an illegal eviction which is not found in the present case.
Therefore, the new owner sale deed having a potentially incomplete
description of the property is unlikely to be a valid ground for a tenant to
question the fundamental change of ownership or avoid their obligations as
a tenant to the new landlord. The respondent/plaintiff has filed the above
suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellant/defendant by putting
up any construction in the suit property without the permission of the
respondent/plaintiff. The above relief can only be granted by a Civil Court.
Hence, the contention made by the appellant/defendant that the Civil Court
has no jurisdiction to entertain the above suit is unsustainable. The courts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:44:25 pm )
below after considering the above facts and circumstances of the case
rightly granted the relief in favour of the plaintiff.
12. In view of the above said discussion, this Court is of the
considered view that the judgment and decree passed by the courts
below are perfectly valid and no interference is warranted. Hence, the
Second Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. The judgment and decree
dated 05.03.2021 passed in A.S. No.16 of 2018, on the file of the
Subordinate Court, Vaniyambadi, Vellore District, confirming the
Judgment and decree dated 04.07.2018 passed in O.S.No.137 of 2015, on
the file of the District Munsif Court, Vaniyambadi, is upheld. No costs.
Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
14.11.2025
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:44:25 pm )
bga
To
1. The Subordinate Court, Vaniyambadi, Vellore District.
2. The District Munsif Court, Vaniyambadi
3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:44:25 pm )
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI,J
bga
Pre delivery Judgment in
S.A.No.672 of 2021 and
14.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:44:25 pm )
