M SANKARALINGAM Vs. SUKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is focussed by the original plaintiff, animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated 20.12.2007 passed in A.S.No.233 of 2007 by the learned II Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, in confirming the judgment and decree of the VII Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, in O.S.No.638 of 2005. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

(2.) HEARD both sides.

(3.) CHALLENGING and impugning the judgments of both the Courts below, this Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff on various grounds, the gist and kernel of them would run thus: Both the Courts below after holding that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property, unjustifiably dismissed the case of the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff's status is only that of a tenant and that he had not proved his title. On arriving at the finding that the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property, the Courts below should have granted injunction, which they failed to do so. The finding of the Courts below that only the owner of a property by establishing his ownership alone could pray for injunction, is against law. The appellate Court ignored the principles as contemplated in the decision reported in 1990(1) U.J.(S.C.) 71 [Krishna Ram Mahale (dead) by his L.Rs. v. Shobha Venkat Rao].