IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03.04.2017 CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS CRP(PD). No.2301 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013 Karuppan .. Petitioner/Plaintiff Vs.
Kannan .. Respondent/Defendant Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Order made in I.A.No.877/2012 in O.S.No.173/2009 dated 31.7.12 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi.
For Petitioner : Mrs. S.R.Sumathy For Respondent : Mr. P.Valliappan
O R D E R
The plaintiff in O.S.No.173 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi, Villupuram District, is the revision petitioner.
2. In the said suit, plaintiff sought for injunction with respect to a piece of property described in the suit schedule. The plaintiff acquired the property by way of bought-in-land as mentioned in the plaint. It is stated in the plaint in vernacular language epy Vy jhpR/ After all, his father is in enjoyment of the property. The defendant tried to interfere with the possession. It is also pleaded in the plaint that the land belongs to the Government.
3. The suit has been resisted by the defendant by filing a written statement claiming by putting by divergence case and also questioning the very right and title interest.
4. In this case, issues were framed. Suit was put on trial. P.W.1 deposed. Both sides evidence over. The suit was posted for arguments. At this juncture, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.877 of 2012 for re-opening the plaintiff's evidence to let in two documents. Besides Ex.A.1 and A2, already let in, the two documents sought to be produced are registered sale agreement dated 04.07.1986 and a copy of the suit registered in O.S. No.382 of 1997.
5. The defendant filed counter with serious objections.
6. The trial Court after hearing both sides also noted that there was no sufficient pleadings for introducing the said evidence, thus, dismissed the petition.
7. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/plaintiff, the plaintiff got the two documents at a later point of time. The plaintiff has to prove his case also the plaintiff has to let in documentary evidence. In the circumstances, the documents were filed before the Court. However, the trial Court has dismissed the re- open petition which has been filed for the said purpose. Virtually, the trial Court has denied the opportunity to the plaintiff to adduce evidence. Thus, the impugned order is not in accordance with law.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant would contend that the document sought to be introduced are quite contra to the very base case of the plaintiff. In the circumstances, the trial Court rightly dismissed the re-open petition.
9. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the impugned order and materials on record.
10. This matter arose out of a injunction suit. Injunction is being asked for to protect the possession. The relief of injunction cannot be granted for mere possession. Of course, issue relating to title need not be gone into an injunction suit because it is not a suit on title and it is also not necessary. But the plaintiff, who seeks discretionary relief of injunction must establish that his possession is a legal possession. Even a permanent occupier, who lacks title is also entitled to protection of the Court. A person, who is in settled possession when his possession is being attempted to be unsettled can seek the relief from the court. Even, a person, who has been put in possession merely based on a sale agreement can also come to the Court using the same as a seal to protect his possession.
11. Basically, in an injunction suit, a Court need not be carried away by mere possession. The possession cannot be based on title or adverse possession. Thus, a mere usurper, interlopers into the property of another person cannot get protection from the Court as Court cannot recognize illegalities.
12. Primarily, when the plaintiff comes to the Court more, particularly seeking the relief of injunction as I state is bound to prove/establish that his possession is a legal possession. Proof of a case does not rest with the pleadings. A mere pleadings unless substantiated by oral and documentary evidences will remain only as pleadings. Of course, all the evidence need not be set out in the plaint.
13. In fact, in course of time, the rigour of rules of pleadings or formula of pleadings has undergone a change. It is also called laxity in approach to the construction of pleadings. Court started giving relief based on the record established. Of course, there must be some basis in the pleadings. Court cannot cry or wash off its hand that it cannot give relief because of some technicalities.
14. Now, in this case, still Judgment has not been pronounced.
At any stage of the case, it is the duty of the plaintiff and the defendant to bring forth the evidence, oral and documentary in their possession to assist the Court to render a correct finding.
15. Now, in this case, plaintiff sought to file two documents to advance his case. Even Government may be the owner of the property. Even with regard to Government property, there are some documents. When a person is in possession under colour of some documents, even that may be also considered by the Court.
16. In a re-open petition itself, the case should not be disposed of. Now a minimum relief has been asked for by the plaintiff to give an opportunity to let in further evidence. But still the plaintiff has to establish before the Court, the relevancy of the document and prove the same and still the defendant has got the opportunity to put forth his version to the said documents when they were sought to be admitted in evidence.
17. In such a view of the matter, dismissing this kind of petition at the infancy stage itself is not a correct approach. After all, it is not a matter of observing the principles of natural justice, in other words, giving an opportunity to the party. It is quite different from relevancy, proof, appreciation of evidence which will come later.
18. In such a view of the matter, it calls for interference.
19. Ordered as under:
(i) This revision succeeds.
(ii) The order passed by the learned Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi in I.A.No. 877 of 2012, is set aside.
(iii) I.A stands allowed.
(iv) The plaintiff/petitioner shall be permitted to let in evidence for the purpose mentioned in the said I.A.
(v) Consequently, recall petition filed by the plaintiff/petitioner shall also be allowed and the relevant witness shall be recalled for the purpose mentioned in I.A.No.877 of 2012.
(vi) The trial Court will give due reasonable opportunity to the respondent/defendant.
(vi) As the suit is of the year 2009 and the scope of the suit is also very limited, the trial Court will expeditiously dispose of the suit preferably, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order uninfluenced by any observation contained in this order.
(vii) No costs.
(viii) Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
07.04.2017 Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No kua To The Principal District Munsif, Kallakurichi Taluk, Villupuram District.
Copy to
1. The Registrar (Judicial)
2. The Assistant Registrar (Appellate side) High Court, Madras.
Dr.P.DEVADASS,J.
kua
CRP(PD). No.2301 of 2013
07.4.2017
http://www.judis.nic.in