M KUPPUSAMY Vs. K L JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Appeals have been filed challenging the order of remand dated 29.04.2005 passed by the learned VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court Chennai in A.S.Nos.154 and 155 of 2003, setting aside the common judgment and decrees dated 11.09.2002 passed by the learned I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S.Nos.10549 and 10750 of 1996.

(2.) THE Appellant herein is the Plaintiff in OS.No.10750 of 1996 and is the Defendant, in O.S.No.10549 of 1996. THE 1st Respondent herein is the Plaintiff in O.S.No.10549 of 1996 and is the 1st Defendant in O.S.No.10750 of 1996. For convenience, the parties will be described as arrayed before the Trial Court in O.S.No.10750 of 1996.

(3.) BY inviting the attention of this Court to Ex.B-17-Mortgage Deed, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff further submitted that Ex.B-17 is the Mortgage Deed executed in respect of the property purchased by the Plaintiff and that the sketch annexed to the Mortgage Deed would show that the Plaintiff is the owner of north eastern corner of the flat. The Trial Court, after considering the entire evidence, has come to the correct conclusion that the Plaintiff is in possession of the north eastern corner flat No.C. Therefore, the question of remanding the matters to the Trial Court, once again for adducing fresh evidence does not arise and the Appellate Court should not have remanded the matters merely for the purpose of adducing further evidence, particularly when sufficient, evidence was available on record to decide the case. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel relied on the decisions reported in the case of Nain Singh v. Koonwarjee and others, 1970 (1) SCC 732 Ramesh Kumar v. Kesho Ram, 1992 Supp. (2) SCC 623 Ashwinkumar K. Patel v. Upendra J. Patel and others, 1999 (1) CTC 710 : 1999 (3) SCC 161 P. Purushottam Reddy and another v. Pratap Steels Ltd, 2002 (2) SCC 686 and Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad v. Sunder Singh, 2008 (8) SCC 485. During the course of arguments, the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff submitted that after getting an order of injunction in O.S.No.10549 of 1996, the 1st Defendant forcibly entered and occupied the north east flat.