This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 11.11.1993, made in A.S.No.21 of 1992, on the file of the District Court, Nagapattinam, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 9.1.1992, made in O.S.No.71 of 1991, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nannilam.
2. The appellants in the present second appeal were the defendants in the suit, in O.S.No.71 of 1991. The plaintiffs in the suit who are the respondents herein, had filed the original suit, in O.S.No.71 of 1991, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nannilam, praying for a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants in the suit, restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule properties.
3. The second plaintiff is the son of the first plaintiff. They are living together as a joint family. The joint family was owning 7 acres of lands and the plaintiffs were in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs were cultivating sugarcane crop in the properties. The plaintiffs had entered into an agreement with Arooran sugar mill situated in the area for supplying sugarcane, for the year 1990-1991. Arooran sugar mill had entered into the agreement only after making necessary enquiries and after verifying the records relating to the possession of the property, which was said to be in the possession of the plaintiffs. Based on the agreement, the sugar mill concerned had been supplying the necessary ingredients for the cultivation of sugarcane. No other person has any right in respect of the sugarcane crop cultivated by the plaintiffs. When the sugarcane crop was ready for harvesting, the defendants in the suit had attempted to disturb the plaintiffs' peaceful possession of the suit properties. Therefore, a police complaint had been lodged by the plaintiffs in Kodavasal Police Station. In such circumstances, the plaintiffs had filed the suit in O.S.No.71 of 1991, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nannilam.
4. In the written statement filed on behalf of the second defendant which has been adopted by defendants No.1, 4 and 6, it has been stated that the plaintiffs had given wrong particulars in the plaint. S.F.No.23/1 is not in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. The said land belongs to the villagers, as a common property. The defendants are villagers belonging to Arivizhi Mangala Village. The community properties are administered by the elders of the village, designated as `Nattanmaikarargal'. The defendants are also part of the group of 'Nattanmaikarargal' of the village. The plaintiffs have not stated as to who is the owner of 1 acre and 70 cents, in S.F.No.23/1. It has also not been stated as to how the plaintiffs had obtained possession of the suit properties and as to what is their right to claim the relief of injunction in respect of the suit properties. The plaintiffs had stated that the properties in issue is a joint family property. The defendants are stoutly denying the claim of the plaintiffs that the suit properties are joint family properties and that the plaintiffs are in peaceful possession and occupation of the said properties.
5. It has been further stated that, along with the suit schedule properties, certain other properties are also belonging to the village community. Even though some of the lands are in the possession of various persons, the suit schedule properties of 1 acre and 70 cents, in S.F.No.23/1, is in the possession of the village community. The income obtained from the properties is spent on the maintenance of the temples in the village. From the lease agreement filed by the plaintiffs it is seen that the properties are in the name of one P.K.Subramaniam. In fact, P.K.Subramaniam is not the absolute owner of the property in S.F.No.23/1. Further, he does not have the power or the authority to grant lease in respect of the land in question. The claim of the plaintiffs that they are cultivating the suit properties cannot be accepted. In fact, no other crop can be cultivated in the suit properties, except paddy. The income which is derived from the leasing out of the land in question is spent on the village community. As such, the first defendant had given the land to the first plaintiff, for one year, for the purpose of cultivation. The first plaintiff had cultivated sugarcane crop in the suit schedule properties, without the knowledge of the first defendant. The land is given on lease to the members of the village community, for the purpose of cultivation, on turn basis. Even though the granting of the lease of the land to the first plaintiff, by the first defendant, is not in accordance with law, the first plaintiff ought to have vacated the property on the expiry of the one year lease period. Even otherwise, the defendants are not attempting to interfere with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Unless the plaintiffs are in a position to show that they are entitled to the possession and occupation of the suit properties, the reliefs prayed for by them cannot be granted.
6. The written statement filed on behalf of the fifth defendant had been adopted by the third and seventh defendants. It has been stated that the plaintiffs are liable to prove that the suit properties are joint family properties, as claimed by them. The claim of the plaintiffs that they are in possession and occupation of the suit properties is denied. It has been further stated that the suit properties belong to the village community and that it is given to various persons, who are performing various duties for the village community. The suit properties have not been given on lease to the plaintiffs, at any point of time. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiffs that they are in peaceful possession and occupation of the suit properties cannot be accepted.
7. On the basis of the averments made on behalf of the plaintiffs and the defendants in the suit in O.S.No.71 of 1991, the trial Court had framed the following issues for consideration:
"i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for by them?
ii) Whether the description of the property in the plaint is correct?
iii) Whether the first item of the suit properties was not in the possession of the plaintiffs on the date of the suit?
iv) What other reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled to?"
7. There were five witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiffs and 84 documents had been marked as exhibits. On behalf of the defendants six witnesses had been examined. However, no document had been marked, on their behalf.
8. The trial Court had found that even though seven items of properties were involved in the suit, the defendants had contested only with regard to the first item of the suit property. During the trial the defendants had adduced evidence showing that the first item of the suit properties was in the possession of the plaintiffs under a lease and that the plaintiffs were cultivating tenants. Even though it had been claimed by the first plaintiff that the suit properties belong to Siva temple the second plaintiff had admitted that the first item of the suit property belongs to the village community. However, in the written statement filed on behalf of the defendants it had been stated that the first item of the suit property had been given to the first plaintiff by the first defendant for the cultivation of the crops. The income derived from the lease was being spent on the temples in the village concerned. Further, the trial Court, based on the documentary evidence available, had come to the conclusion that the first item of the suit properties was in the possession of the first plaintiff. No such evidence was made available by the defendants before the trial Court to substantiate their claims that the suit properties were not in the possession of the plaintiffs. In such circumstances, the trial Court, after analysing the evidence on record, had come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit properties at the time of the filing of the suit. Therefore, the suit had been decreed by the trial Court, in its judgment and decree, dated 9.1.1992, made in O.S.No.71 of 1991.
9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, made in O.S.No.71 of 1991, the defendants had filed an appeal in A.S.No.21 of 1992, on the file of the District Court, Nagapattinam. The First Appellate Court by its judgment and decree, dated 11.11.1993, made in A.S.No.21 of 1992, while confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court, made in O.S.No.71 of 1991, had framed the following points for consideration:
"i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for by them?
ii) Whether the description of the property in the plaint is correct?
Iii) Whether the first item of the suit properties was not in the possession of the plaintiffs on the date of the suit?
iv) What other reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled to?"
10. On analysing the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants, as well as the respondents in the first appeal, the First Appellate Court had come to the conclusion that the suit properties, especially, the first item of the suit properties was in the possession of the first plaintiff. Taking into consideration the documentary evidence available, including the lease agreement, marked as Ex.A-1, dated 14.4.1990, entered into between the plaintiffs and Arooran Sugar Mill, the First Appellate Court had come to the conclusion that the possession of the property is with the plaintiffs. From the document marked as Ex.A-2, it was found that the first plaintiff was given the lease of the first item of the suit property. From the other documentary evidence available the claim of the defendants that the property concerned was given on lease to the first plaintiff, only for a year, and that the possession of the properties was taken back by the defendants could not be established. In such circumstances, the First Appellate Court had also found that the defendants had not substantiated their claims by sufficient evidence. In such circumstances, the First Appellate Court had confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court, dated 9.1.1992, made in O.S.No.71 of 1991, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Nannilam.
11. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the courts below, the defendants in the suit O.S.No.71 of 1991, had filed the present second appeal.
12. This Court had admitted the second appeal on the following substantial questions of law:
"1) Whether the Courts below are right in ignoring the question of title while considering the prayer for permanent injunction?
2) Whether the Courts below are right in granting the relief of permanent injunction even though the case of the plaintiffs and title is contradictory?
3) Whether the suit as framed is maintainable in law without invoking order I Rule 8 of C.P.C.?"
13. The second appeal has been filed stating that the courts below had erred in decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiffs, who are the respondents in the present second appeal, without proper appreciation of the facts of the case, the evidence on record and the probabilities of the case. The courts below had failed to note that the plaintiffs did not have any title to the suit properties. They had also erred in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are in possession of the suit properties. A suit for bare injunction cannot be maintained, unless the origin of possession can be traced to the title in respect of the properties in question. It is not the case of the plaintiffs that they had got the lease of the lands in question from the holders of the title. When the suit properties belong to the community of the Village, as a whole, the reliefs sought for by the plaintiffs, in the suit, ought not to have been granted by the Courts below. It was also contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that an equitable relief of injunction cannot be granted, without resolving the issues relating to the title of the property concerned.
14. In view of the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants, as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the appellants have not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to interfere with the findings of the Courts below. Both the Courts below have come to the right conclusion based on the evidence available on record that the respondents in the present second appeal, who were the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.71 of 1991, were in possession of the suit properties concerned, at the relevant point of time. Sufficient documentary evidence was available to substantiate the claims of the plaintiffs, with regard to their possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Even though the appellants have claimed that the lease of the properties granted in favour of the respondents had expired and that the lands had been resumed, they have not been in a position to show sufficient proof in support of their claims.
15. It is well settled that in a suit for mere injunction, it is only the question of possession that would have to be gone into and not the issues relating to the title. In such view of the matter, it is clear that the appellants have not been in a position to show that the judgment and decree of the Courts below are unsustainable in the eye of law and liable to be set aside. Further, no substantial question of law arises for the consideration of this Court, in the present second appeal. In such circumstances, the second appeal is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merits. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs.
Index:Yes/No 12-08-2009 Internet:Yes/No csh M.JAICHANDREN,J.
csh To
1) The District Court, Nagapattinam
2) The District Munsif Court, Nannilam.
S.A.No.1016 of 1994 12-08-2009