LAWS(MAD)-2002-6-105

VENU REDDIAR Vs. BALASUBRAMANIAN

Decided On June 13, 2002
Venu Reddiar Appellant
V/S
BALASUBRAMANIAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff filed the above appeal questioning the correctness of remand order passed by the lower Court.

(2.) THE plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining from interfering with his peaceful possession. In the plaint the schedule property is mentioned as it covers 1 acre and 75 cents, that too within the specific boundaries. Though the suit was resisted by the respondent it is stated in the written statement that within the said specific boundaries mentioned in the plaint, the extent must be more than 1 acre and 75 cents. After considering the objections and evidence, the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. So the respondent filed appeal. However, the lower appellate Court found that the respondent has no objection to grant a decree with respect to the land measuring 1.75 acres on the south of the plaintiff's patta land. But having held so, the lower appellate Court remanded the matter to the trial Court to find out what are all the land which are not in possession and what are all the land, which are in possession of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed the above appeal.

(3.) THE Courts concerned only with respect to the suit property. The plaintiff has come forward with the suit only in respect of 1.75 acres situated within a specified boundary. As found by the lower appellate Court the respondent/defendant has no objection to grant decree with respect to the said land. So the lower appellate Court should have confirmed the judgment of the trial Court. But unfortunately it has remitted the matter back to the trial Court to find out about the other factors, viz., more and above the suit land how much the plaintiff is in possession and how much extent of land is available in which the plaintiff is not in possession. The said facts are not necessary to deal with the issues raised in the suit. The apprehension of the respondent as submitted by the learned Counsel that by enforcing the decrees the petitioner/plaintiff may disturb her possession cannot be accepted, since the decree is passed only with respect to the specific property situated within the specified boundary. Morever, the question of disturbing the respondents possession on will not arise as the suit is only for bare injunction. Hence, the order of remand is liable to be set aside.