Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 4705 (MAD)

Kannaiyan & Others v. Sulochana Ammal

2008-12-17

M.VENUGOPAL

body2008
Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioners/respondents/defendants have projected this civil revision petition as against the order dated 25.08.2008 in C.M.A.No.9 of 2008 passed by the Sub Court, Panruti in allowing the civil miscellaneous appeal filed by the respondent/plaintiff as an appellant. 2. The First Appellate Authority viz., the learned Sub Judge, Panruti, while allowing the C.M.A.No.9 of 2008, has inter alia opined that the finding of the trial Court that the respondent/plaintiff/petitioner failed to establish a prima facie title and possession of the suit property is not correct and that the trial Court has conveniently skipped off the title deeds produced by the respondent/plaintiff and gave an erroneous finding etc. and resultantly, has allowed the appeal and granted an order of interim injunction restraining the revision petitioners/ respondents/defendants etc. from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property of the respondent/plaintiff till the disposal of the suit and subject to the result of the suit. .3. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners urges before this Court that an order passed by the First Appellate Court in C.M.A.No.9 of 2008 is vitiated by material irregularity and an illegal one and that the First Appellate Authority has not taken into account of the fact that the property belonged to the madam and further that it has come to the wrong conclusion in deciding that the respondent/plaintiff has title to the suit property, thus pre-judging the main suit itself and the fact remains that admittedly patta stood in the name of the madam and that the respondent/plaintiff has not chosen to get the name changed and further Ex.A.21, the respondents/plaintiffs own document adangal extract shows that the madam as the owner from 1979 to 2005 and moreover, the respondent/plaintiffs vendors did not have title or possession and therefore, they could not have conveyed any right to the respondent/ plaintiff and these aspects of the matter have not been looked into by the First Appellate Authority in the right perspective and this has resultantly in miscarriage of justice and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition in the interest of justice. 4. It is to be pointed out that the respondent/plaintiff has filed I.A.No.1201 of 2007 before the trial Court under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code praying for the relief of ad-interim injunction against the civil revision petitioners/respondents/defendants etc. 4. It is to be pointed out that the respondent/plaintiff has filed I.A.No.1201 of 2007 before the trial Court under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code praying for the relief of ad-interim injunction against the civil revision petitioners/respondents/defendants etc. and after contest, the trial Court has dismissed the interlocutory application inter alia opining that the respondent/plaintiff has no prima facie and balance of convenience and further that only after the conduct of full trial the truth of the matters will be brought before the Court and presently the documents mentioned in the revenue records cannot be construed as a wrong one etc. 5. At this juncture, it is relevant to point out that in I.A.No.1201 of 2007 on either side documents have been marked, but no oral evidence has been adduced by the parties. In deciding interlocutory applications the parties can let in oral evidence or they can mark documents. In the instant case, before the trial Court on either side no witnesses have been examined but only documents have been filed and marked. 6. Admittedly, the respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit for the relief of declaration declaring her title to the suit property and for the consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendants 1 to 3 etc. and also for the relief of mandatory injunction against the defendants 4 and 5 directing them to make necessary corrections in respect of the suit property in Patta No.79 in the name of respondent/plaintiff in the revenue records like chitta, adangal extract and A register. .7. and also for the relief of mandatory injunction against the defendants 4 and 5 directing them to make necessary corrections in respect of the suit property in Patta No.79 in the name of respondent/plaintiff in the revenue records like chitta, adangal extract and A register. .7. In as much as the parties have not adduced oral evidence in I.A.No.1201 of 2007 and since they have only relied upon documents produced on their side and in view of the fact that the First Appellate Authority has allowed the civil miscellaneous appeal by taking the view that the title deeds produced by the respondent/plaintiff have not been taken into account by the trial Court and construed the overall assessment and cumulative attendant facts and circumstances of the case, this Court without adjudicating the rights of parties on merits is of the considered view that the parties can thrash out all the factual and legal issues before the trial Court in their issues in regard to the suit by letting in oral and documentary evidence and in that view of the matter, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed off by this Court without costs. 8. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed off directing the trial Court viz., the District Munsif Court, Panruti to dispose of the main case within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and to report compliance to this Court. Liberty is given to the parties to let in oral and documentary evidence to substantiate their case and the parties are directed to cooperate with the trial Court in regard to the completion of proceedings leaving all the contentions open. Till the disposal of the suit, within the time frame fixed by this Court, the respondent/plaintiff shall not be disturbed from the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.