The defendant, who lost before the Courts below, is the appellant herein and she filed the present appeal by framing the following substantial questions of law: (1)Whether the Courts below passed orders in favour of the respondent on the basis of the tax receipts without production of any documentary evidence?
(2)Whether the Courts below can come to conclusion without any title in favour of the respondent and passed decree in favour of the respondent herein?
2.The suit has been laid by the plaintiff based upon the possession supported by Exs.A1 to a12. The trial Court decreed the suit based upon the above said documents and also considering the evidence of the appellant, who accepted the factum of possession. The lower appellate Court has also concurred with the same.
3.Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that a blanket decree for injunction has been granted by the trial Court. This Court is afraid that the said contention is not correct. What has been granted is only a decree for injunction. Therefore, the nature of possession and the title to the suit property has never been the subject matter of the suit. Thus the decree granted by the Courts below would not prevent the appellant from filing a comprehensive suit for declaration and possession, if she is so advised.
4.With the above said observation, the second appeal stands dismissed. It is made clear that as and when such a comprehensive suit is filed, the jurisdictional Court will have to decide the suit on its own merits, without being influenced by any one of the findings given by the Courts below with respect to the status of the parties and the title. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.01.2017 Index:Yes/No mmi To
1.The Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai..
2.The Additional District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai.
M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
mmi S.A.No.987 of 2016 05.01.2017 http://www.judis.nic.in