Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1646 (MAD)

Narasimha Pillai & Others v. Shanmugam

2005-10-01

M.CHOCKALINGAM

body2005
Judgment :- (Second Appeal filed under section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.56 of 2004 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ranipet on 25.2.2005 confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.87 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, No.I, Wallajah, on 19.3.2004.) This second appeal has been brought forth challenging the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ranipet made in A.S.NO.56 of 2004 affirming the judgment of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, No.1, Wallajah in O.S.No.87 of 1997 filed by the respondent herein seeking a relief of permanent injunction. 2. The respondent/plaintiff came with a case stating that the suit property was purchased by way of a registered sale deed dated 22.3.1995 for a consideration of Rs.10,000/- from one Murali and from that time, he became entitled to the property and the property tax has been paid thereafter, all along the period to the Municipality. Defendants 1 and 2 were brothers and defendants 3 and 4 were the sons of the second defendant. They were making an attempt to interfere in the enjoyment of the property without any iota of right. Under the circumstances, there arose a necessity to file a suit for permanent injunction. 3. The suit was resisted by the appellants/ defendants stating that the property belonged to them ancestrally and they have been in enjoyment of the same for decades. It is not correct to state that the plaintiff has been paying tax in that regard also. Thus the sale deed was one got for the purpose of grabbing the property and the plaintiff does not have any title to the property. Hence, the suit was to be dismissed. 4.The trial court framed necessary issues, tried the suit, found that the plaintiff was entitled to the injunction asked for and decreed the suit. Aggrieved defendants took it on appeal. The defence plea was rejected by the First Appellate Forum also. Thus, the appeal was dismissed. Hence, the above second appeal at the instance of the defendants. 5.The court heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the entire materials are gone into. The Court is unable to notice any reason even for an admission of this second appeal. The defence plea was rejected by the First Appellate Forum also. Thus, the appeal was dismissed. Hence, the above second appeal at the instance of the defendants. 5.The court heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the entire materials are gone into. The Court is unable to notice any reason even for an admission of this second appeal. 6.The gist of the case of the plaintiff before the courts below is that he is seeking for the relief of permanent injunction, that he became entitled to the property by way of a sale deed dated 22.3.1995 and it was a registered one. Following the same, he has been paying tax also. Both the oral and documentary evidence were properly marshaled and considered by the trial court. 7. What were all contended by the defendants before the courts below and equally here also is that they have been in continuous possession of the property for nearly about four decades and they have been paying tax also. In order to proof the fact, they filed Exs.B3 to B9. The trial court has properly scrutinized the documents, which according to the defendants, are tax receipts and found that those documents could not be relied by a court of law and thus rejected the entire evidence. The courts below have also believed the case of the plaintiff since the property in question was purchased by the plaintiff under Ex.A1 sale deed dated 22.3.1995. Subsequently, in order to prove his possession, documentary evidence was also adduced and thus the trial court granted the relief of injunction, which was also rightly confirmed by the first Appellate Court. 8. Both the courts below on the question of fact have given a concurrent finding and this Court is unable to find any reason or question of law, much less, substantial question of law, warranting an admission of second appeal. The second appeal requires an order of dismissal in the hands of this Court. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed at the admission stage itself.