N.Rajendran v. N.G.K.Suresh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 11.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI S.A.No.241 of 2023 and CMP.No.6905 of 2023 N.Rajendran .. Appellant Vs.
N.G.K.Suresh .. Respondent PRAYER : Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, prayed to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 29.04.2021 made in A.S.No.78 of 2018 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai, in reversing the judgment and decree dated 18.04.2018 made in O.S.No.12 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Seerkali. For Appellant : Mr.Mukunth, Senior counsel for Mr.N.Damodaran For Respondent : Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar
J U D G M E N T
The appellant has filed this Second Appeal against the the Judgment and Decree dated 29.04.2021 made in A.S.No.78 of 2018 on the file of the
Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, which reversing the judgment and decree dated 18.04.2018 made in O.S.No.12 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif, Seerkali.
2. Heard, Mr.Mukunth, learned Senior counsel appearing for Mr.N.Damodaran learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
3. Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the defendant has preferred this appeal.
4. Before the trial court, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction, claiming that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property situated at Thirukadaiyur Village, Tarangambadi Taluk, in an extent of 24 cents with four boundaries in S.No. 416/3. The suit property, marked as ABCD in the plaint, was allegedly enjoyed by the plaintiff based on an agreement entered into with Chandrasekar, who was in long possession and enjoyment of the property and derived title thereto. However, the defendant
allegedly caused interference by making false claims, leading to the filing of the suit.
5. The defendant appeared before the trial court and filed a written statement but remained ex parte during the trial. There was no crossexamination of PW1. However, the plaintiff adduced evidence through PW2, the Village Administrative Officer (VAO). Based on the evidence, the trial court found that, in respect of 18 cents in R.S. No. 416/3, the plaintiff had title. However, for the remaining 6 cents, the plaintiff had no title. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed. Aggrieved by the findings, the plaintiff preferred an appeal.
6. The learned first appellate judge analyzed the evidence on record and concluded that the plaintiff proved his enjoyment of the suit property. It was noted that, as per the rough plan, the portion marked as ADEF belonged to the plaintiff by way of purchase. Further, the suit property, situated on the northern side, was allegedly enjoyed by the plaintiff based on an agreement with his vendor Chandrasekar. Satisfied with the plaintiff's claim, the appellate court allowed the appeal and set aside the findings of the trial court.
7. It is noteworthy that before the first appellate court, the defendant contested the case through his counsel but failed to adduce evidence. Challenging the appellate court's findings, the defendant has now filed this appeal.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submitted that the first appellate court failed to appreciate the evidence of PW2 (VAO), who deposed that there was no proof of the plaintiff's enjoyment of the suit property. According to the plaint, the plaintiff claimed rights over the suit property, measuring 24 cents, based on an unregistered agreement (Ex. A2) allegedly entered into with Chandrasekar, who was in long possession of the property. However, there was no evidence to prove that Chandrasekar possessed valid title to the suit property.
9. Despite serious objections raised by the defendant through a detailed written statement, the first appellate court granted relief to the plaintiff without proper evidence. To avoid further multiplicity of proceedings, this court is inclined to set aside the findings of the first appellate court and remand the matter back to the trial court.
10. The appellant/defendant is directed to cross-examine PW1 to PW3 and to adduce evidence on his behalf. The plaintiff is also permitted to submit further oral and documentary evidence, apart from the evidence of PW1 to PW3. After recording evidence from both sides, the trial court is directed to dispose of the case by framing fresh issues without being influenced by any prior orders of the courts below.
11. The findings of the courts below are set aside, and the learned trial judge is directed to dispose of the case within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
12. With the above direction, this second appeal is disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
11.11.2024 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No Nutral citation: Yes/No rri
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
rri To 1.The Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai,
2. The District Munsif, Seerkali.
3.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Madras.
S.A.No.241 of 2023 and CMP.No.6905 of 2023 11.11.2024