MEERABAI AMMAL Vs. P L PURUSHOTHAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiff, who lost the suit before both the Courts below, is the appellant herein. THE suit was filed for bare injunction. It is the contention of the plaintiff that she is the absolute owner of the suit property, having purchased the same under the sale deed dated 20.10.1989 from the original owners. THE plaintiff also would contend that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, having mutated her name in the Revenue records and paid the kists to the Revenue authorities. Contending that the defendant who had no manner of right or title to the suit property, is making an attempt to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff, the suit has been filed for the aforesaid relief.

(2.) THE defendant who is the respondent herein filed the written statement, denying the ownership claimed by the plaintiff on the basis of the sale deed, which she obtained from her alleged predecessors in title. It is contended that the defendant filed the suit in O.S.No.149 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsic, Kanchipuram, against one M.Elumalai for declaration of title and also for permanent injunction. THE right, title and possession of the defendant were ultimately declared by the competent Court. THE said Elumalai had alienated the suit property to the predecessors in title of the plaintiff even during the pendency of the said suit. THE aforesaid alienations are subject to the principles of lis pendens. Contending that the defendant has raised ground nut crop in the suit properties and has been in possession and enjoyment of the same, sought to dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff.

(3.) PER contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the right and title of the respondent/defendant were already established before the competent Court in O.S.No.149 of 1983 on the file of the District Munsif, Kancheepuram and therefore the necessity to produce any other documentary proof to establish the title of the defendant does not arise for consideration. The documents produced by the plaintiff subsequent to the filing of the suit to show her possession has been rightly rejected by the Courts below. In the face of the findings given by the competent Court in O.S.No.149 of 1983 it was correctly held that the possession of the defendant was established and therefore, the defendant was entitled to an order of permanent injunction. It is his further submission that the plaintiff without challenging the earlier judgment in A.S.No.14 of 1998, which stares at her, cannot seek for a bare injunction. He would also submit that inasmuch as the possession of Elumalai, as contended by him was rejected in the earlier proceedings in A.S.No.14 of 1998, and no evidence also was let in by the plaintiff to show that the possession of the defendant was divested and Elumalai took possession of the property, the plaintiff cannot independently set up a plea that she has come into possession of the property pursuant to the sale transactions clinched with the predecessors in title, who got the property from the very same Elumalai.