Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1577 (MAD)

Kathavarayan v. Elumalai

2011-03-21

G.RAJASURIA

body2011
Judgment :- 1. These two second appeals are focussed by the original plaintiffs, animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2007 passed in A.S.Nos.57 and 59 of 2006 by the Sub Court, Maduranthakam, confirming the judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court, Maduranthakam in O.S.Nos.4 and 192 of 2001. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 2. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these two Second Appeals would run thus: (a) O.S.No.4 of 2001 was filed by the plaintiff/Kathavarayan seeking the following reliefs: "(i) To pass a decree of permanent injunction to restrain the defendant, their men, agents etc from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property; and (ii) for costs" (extracted as such) (b) O.S.No.192 of 2001 was filed by the said Kathavarayan along with his two sons, plaintiffs 2 and 3, namely Kanniappan and Minor Pambaiyan seeking the following reliefs: "(i) To grant the consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants their men, agents etc in alienating and encumbering the suit property. (ii) To grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents and others in interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property; and (iii) for costs." (c) The respective defendants filed the written statements resisting the suits. (c) Whereupon the trial Court framed the issues. (d) During joint trial, on the side of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A18 were marked. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B11 were marked. (e) Ultimately the trial Court dismissed the two suits as against which two appeals were filed, for nothing but to be dismissed by the appellate Court confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 3. Challenging and impugning the judgment and decree of both the Courts below, these two Second Appeals have been filed on various grounds and also suggesting the following substantial questions of law: "(a) Whether in law the courts below are right in holding that the suits are hit by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC when the causes of action for the two suits are entirely different from each other and arose at different time? (b) Whether in law the courts below are not wrong in failing to mould the decree and in refusing to grant a decree atleast for the extent admitted by the respondents to be in possession of the appellants? (c) Whether in law the courts below are right in failing to see that as Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are ancient documents produced from proper custody, the recitals therein should be presumed to be true under Section 90 of the Evidence Act? (extracted as such) 4. My learned Predecessor framed the following substantial questions of law: "(1) Whether the courts below have committed an error of law in holding that the suits are hit by Order 2 Rule 2 CPC when the cause of action for the two suits are entirely different from each other and arose at different times? (2) Whether the court below have committed an error of law in failing to mould the relief of refusing to grant a decree atleast in respect of the extent admitted by the respondents to be in possession of the appellants? (extracted as such) 5. Heard both sides. 6. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs/appellants would put forth and set forth her arguments thus: (a) Out of the extent of 2.26 acres of land in S.No.245 as found set out supra, the defendants were entitled to half share. However, subsequently as per Ex.A1, an extent of 50 cents was sold by Chinnakulandhai in favour of Pambaiya Gounder, son of Venkatapathy who happened to be the brother of Chinnakulandhai and subsequently as per Ex.A2, the said Chinnakulandhai's sons, namely Munusamy and Ponnusamy created usufructory mortgage to an extent of 67 cents in the same survey number. As such, totally they got themselves divested of their possession over 117 cents and in such a case, they are having no right in S.No.245 at all. However, they are trying to cause disturbance to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiffs. (b) The first suit O.S.No.4 of 2001 was filed by Kathavarayan, son of Pambaiya Gounder. Subsequently, the same Kathavarayan along with his sons, the plaintiffs 2 and 3, namely Kanniappan and Minor Pambaiyan filed another suit O.S.No.192 of 2001 seeking the same relief of injunction and setting out almost the same set of facts. (b) The first suit O.S.No.4 of 2001 was filed by Kathavarayan, son of Pambaiya Gounder. Subsequently, the same Kathavarayan along with his sons, the plaintiffs 2 and 3, namely Kanniappan and Minor Pambaiyan filed another suit O.S.No.192 of 2001 seeking the same relief of injunction and setting out almost the same set of facts. (c) According to the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, the defendants in both the suits are having no right over any extent of land in the suit property, however, both the courts below fell into error in not granting injunction by seeing the reality. 7. Per contra, in a bid to torpedo and pulverise the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the plaintiffs, the learned counsel for the defendants would advance his arguments thus: (a) The said Venkatapathy is a stranger to Chinnakulandhai and he is having no right in S.No.245 measuring an extent of 2.26 acres. No doubt, an extent of 50 cents was sold as per Ex.A1 and subsequently, there was some mortgage created as per Ex.A2. Even then, in respect of the remaining items, the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment in S.No.245 as per Exs.B2 and B8 to B11. (b) The defendants are having right of ownership and possession in the land found described in the schedule of the plaint and as such, the plea of the plaintiffs is too big a pill to swallow as though the defendants are having no extent of ownership and possession in respect of the suit property. (c) The schedule of property in the plaint is bereft and niggard of boundaries and it is vague as vagueness could be. Nowhere it is found stated as to which extent the plaintiffs are having possession, and to which extent the defendants are having possession in S.No.245. The plaintiffs would project falsely as though the entire S.No.245 comprised of 2.26 acres is under their possession and enjoyment which is quite antithetical to Exs.A1 and A6 filed by them and that also runs counter to Exs.B2 and B8 to B11. (d) The suits were bad for want of a prayer for declaration of title. Ex facie and prima facie it is clear that there is some title dispute involved between the parties, but the plaintiffs have chosen to simply file the two suits without properly describing the suit property. (d) The suits were bad for want of a prayer for declaration of title. Ex facie and prima facie it is clear that there is some title dispute involved between the parties, but the plaintiffs have chosen to simply file the two suits without properly describing the suit property. Hence both the Courts below were right in dismissing both the suits warranting no interference in these two Second Appeals by this Court, which while exercising its power under section 100 of CPC would not interfere with the concurrent finding of facts. 8. On hearing both sides, I am of considered view that the following additional substantial questions of law also should be formulated: (3) Whether the plaintiffs were justified in filing the suit without a prayer for declaration of title to the suit property in view of the serious title dispute as found exemplified from the records? (4) Whether there is any perversity or illegality in the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below? SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW NO.1 9. The first substantial question of law as framed by my learned Predecessor is relating to Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC which is extracted hereunder for ready reference: "(2) Relinquishment of part of claim—Where a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his claim he shall not afterwards sue in respect of the portion so omitted or relinquished" 10. Here in my considered opinion, Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC is having no application. While arguing, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs also has not advanced any argument in support of the plea relating to Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC. The learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants would correctly point out that both the Courts below have not dismissed the suits on the ground of Order 2 Rule 2 of CPC. As such I am of the view that the said substantial question of law does not arise in this case. 11. Accordingly, the first substantial question of law is decided to the effect that Order 2 Rule 2 CPC is not applicable to this case at all. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW NOS.2 TO 4: 12. These substantial questions of law are taken together for discussion as they are inter linked and inter woven with one another. 13. 11. Accordingly, the first substantial question of law is decided to the effect that Order 2 Rule 2 CPC is not applicable to this case at all. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW NOS.2 TO 4: 12. These substantial questions of law are taken together for discussion as they are inter linked and inter woven with one another. 13. The narration of facts as set out supra would display and demonstrate that the plaint is also bereft of details about the factum of the plaintiffs having acquired title and possession in respect of the entire extent of 2.26 acres in S.No.245. If at all the title to the property is beyond doubt, the question of seeking for injunction simplicitor would arise, but in this case the available records would prove and establish that the parties are fighting at arms length regarding the title over the suit property. On the one hand, the plaintiffs would proceed on the ground as though they are the absolute owners of the entire extent of 2.26 acres in S.No.245 and try to canvass the case that they are in possession, forgetting for the moment that even as per Ex.A4 and Ex.B1 which are all relating to S.No.245. They attempted to simply get an injunction suppressing the real facts involved and without even making a specific prayer for declaration of title. Not to put too fine a point on it, in a suit for injunction, the basic requirement is that the plaintiff should prove that as on the date of filing of the suit, the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit, but that was not proved here. As such both the Courts below correctly understanding the proposition of law dismissed the original suits and did not give any relief. 14. Accordingly, the substantial question of law No.2 is decided to the effect that courts below have not committed an error of law in failing to mould the relief of refusing to grant a decree atleast in respect of the extent admitted by the respondents to be in possession of the appellants. 15. The substantial question of law No.3 is decided to the effect that the suits were bad for want of a prayer for declaration of title. 16. 15. The substantial question of law No.3 is decided to the effect that the suits were bad for want of a prayer for declaration of title. 16. The substantial question of law No.4 is decided to the effect that there is no perversity or illegality in the judgment and decree passed by both the Courts below. 17. In the result, both the Second Appeals are dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.