Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2733 (MAD)

Benny Prabhu v. P. T. Paramasivam

2022-08-16

P.T.ASHA

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgement and Decree dated 17.02.2021 in A.S.No.9 of 2019 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Ponneri, confirming the Decree and Judgement dated 25.01.2018 in O.S.No.79 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Judge, Ponneri.) 1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs before the lower Appellate Court are the appellants before this Court. The facts in brief necessary for disposing of the appeal are as follows and for the ease of understanding, parties are referred to in the same ranking as before the Trial Court. 2. The plaintiffs have filed the suit for a bare injunction in O.S.No.79 of 2013 on the file of the Sub Judge, Ponneri. It is their case that they and their grandfather are the caretakers and the custodians of the suit properties. The plaintiffs and their relatives have constructed huts in the suit property which originally measured an extent of 6.50 acres. One Umar had alienated the properties and allotted some portion to Adi Dravidars for constructing huts which is called the Periyar Nagar. He had also allotted place for Muslim Darga, but however, the plaintiffs had been cheated as no remuneration had been paid either to the plaintiffs or to the previous owners. 3. Thereafter, a compromise was held between the village elders, one Mangayarkarasi and the defendants and in the said compromise, the suit properties were allotted to the plaintiffs for their service. As agreed by the said Mangayarkarasi and the defendants, the plaintiffs have constructed a cement sheet house for themselves. The plaintiff submitted that they had helped in shifting the Adi Dravidars people from the front portion to the rear side of the property. They had also succeeded in creating a 33 feet road on the northern side of the property to reach the backyard. 4. The defendants had purchased 50 cents from out of 6.02 acres under four sale deeds from one Abdul Wahab. The property included the one which the plaintiffs were entrusted to take care of. Though the defendants claimed to have purchased the property, they have not been in possession and enjoyment of the same and it is the plaintiffs who had been in enjoyment of the property for several decades together. The plaintiffs have made some improvements to the suit property. Though the defendants claimed to have purchased the property, they have not been in possession and enjoyment of the same and it is the plaintiffs who had been in enjoyment of the property for several decades together. The plaintiffs have made some improvements to the suit property. The 1st and the 2nd defendants have purchased 25 cents each in the suit Survey No.1105/1B under four different sale deeds. This sale had taken place without the consent and knowledge of the plaintiffs. The said Abdul Wahab had alienated the suit property to the defendants illegally and unlawfully. The plaintiffs would submit that they had been cheated by the defendants Umar and Abdul Wahab and both of them had committed a breach trust. Hence, the suit for permanent injunction has been filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants. 5. In the written statement and additional written statement the defendants had contended that the suit property has been purchased for valuable consideration by the defendants from its true owner. The plaintiffs have never been in possession of the suit property and the alleged Mangayarkarasi is no way connected with the suit property. The defendants would deny that they had entered into a compromise with the plaintiffs and have never allotted any property to them. The defendants have purchased four plots bearing Plot Nos.13 to 16 measuring an extent of 50 cents in Survey No.1105/1B from the said Abdul Wahab free of all encumbrances. The consent of the plaintiffs are not necessary as they are not the owners of the property. They would further submit that the 33 feet road was in existence even at the time of purchase of the suit property by the defendants. The defendants would submit that the only intent of the plaintiffs is to extort money from the defendants. The defendants would also submit that the revenue records have been mutated in their names. They would submit that since a cloud has been cast on the title of the plaintiffs, they ought to have sought for a declaration. 6. The plaintiffs have filed a reply to the written statement in which they would contend that the suit property is a no man's property since 1947. After independence, the Harijans were the main occupiers and caretakers of the suit property and the neighbouring property. 6. The plaintiffs have filed a reply to the written statement in which they would contend that the suit property is a no man's property since 1947. After independence, the Harijans were the main occupiers and caretakers of the suit property and the neighbouring property. The plaintiffs have contended that they have been in possession for more than the statutory period of 12 years and have therefore perfected title by adverse possession. They would submit that the suit property is a Poromboke land and no one is entitled to patta for the said land. There was no question of permissive occupation or surrender of occupation for the said land. The plaintiffs would contend that they are in lawful possession of the property and since their possession had been threatened, they are before the Court seeking an injunction. They had come forward with yet another contention that Abdul Wahab had executed the sale deed in favour of the defendants under fear and threat. 7. The learned Subordinate Judge, Ponneri after considering the pleadings had framed the following issues :- i) Whether the plaintiffs and their ancestors are caretakers of the suit property is true. ii) Whether it is true that defendants have purchased the suit property as claimed by them. iii) Whether the plaintiffs entitled to the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for. iv) To what other relief if any the plaintiffs are entitled. 8. As an answer to the query as to whether the plaintiffs and their ancestors are caretakers of the suit property, the learned Subordinate Judge, Ponneri has held that the plaintiff and their ancestors were never the caretakers of the suit property. Ultimately, the suit was dismissed. Challenging the same, the appellants came up by way of an appeal in A.S.No. 9 of 2019 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge Ponneri. The learned Appellate Court also concurred with the judgement and decree of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Challenging the same, the plaintiffs are before this Court. 9. Heard the counsel for the plaintiffs. 10. The plaintiffs have not come forward with a definite case as to who was the original owner of the property and under whom they claimed a right to be in possession of the property. Challenging the same, the plaintiffs are before this Court. 9. Heard the counsel for the plaintiffs. 10. The plaintiffs have not come forward with a definite case as to who was the original owner of the property and under whom they claimed a right to be in possession of the property. The defendants on the other hand had produced the sale deeds under which they have purchased the property and also the revenue records to show their being in possession and enjoyment of the property from the year 1964 onwards. The plaintiffs who come forward with a suit for permanent injunction have not proved their continued possession of the suit property and not a single revenue record has been filed except for a xerox copy of the property tax of the year 1987. Both the Courts below have considered these factors to non-suit the plaintiff. 11. The Courts below have further held that though the plaintiffs have questioned the authority of Abdul Wahab to sell the property to the defendants under Ex.B.3 to Ex.B6, they have not challenged the same. Further under Ex.A2 notice, the plaintiffs have themselves stated that they have vacated the property at the request of the defendants. In these circumstances, the plaintiffs without being in possession of the property cannot seek to have a decree for permanent injunction. 12. The Courts below have rightly rejected the said request and since no Substantial Question of law can be made out by the plaintiffs, I see no reason to interfere with the concurrent judgment and decree of the Courts below, consequently the Second Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed, if any.