ARULMIGU SOMANATHASAMY Vs. A. P. SHANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2007 passed in A.S.No.30 of 2006 on the file of the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2005 passed in O.S.No.6943 of 1995 on the file of the V Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial court.

(3.) The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for the relief of permanent injunction. The plaintiff claims title to the suit property. For the same, the plaintiff is found to have relied mainly upon the property register marked as Ex.A1. The second defendant has disputed the claim of the plaintiff's title to the suit property and on the other hand, the second defendant has pleaded that the suit property belongs to him as detailed in the written statement. As rightly found by the Courts below, on a perusal of Ex.A1 Register, it is found that the suit property is nowhere mentioned in the same and the property comprised in Paimash No. 736 is noted only in the annexure of Ex.A1 Register. As to why in the main register the suit property has not been disclosed, there is no proper explanation on the part of the plaintiff. Therefore, as rightly and concurrently held by the Courts below, Ex.A1 Register cannot be the foundation for upholding the plaintiff's claim of title to the suit property. Furthermore, it has also been putforth by the plaintiff that it has been enjoying the suit property by leasing out the same. To evidence the same, according to the plaintiff the DCB Register would point out the same and the said documents are available with the plaintiff. However the plaintiff has not endeavoured to produce the said documents to show that it had been enjoying the suit property by leasing out the same to Alamelu Ammal and others. It is seen that the defendant had called upon the plaintiff to produce the documents available in its custody for evidencing its claim of title, possession and enjoyment and despite the receipt of the said notice and eventhough the plaintiff had admitted that the said documents are available in its custody, for the reasons best known to the plaintiff, the plaintiff has not placed the said documents for consideration. As rightly found by the Courts below, the documents marked as Exs.A3 to A7 would not by itself be sufficient to hold that it had leased out the suit property to Alamelu ammal and enjoying the same, particularly, when the abovesaid documents do not reflect the suit property. In such view of the matter, the Courts below are justified in not placing reliance upon Exs.A3 to A7. As rightly noted, the only document relied upon by the plaintiff for sustaining his claim of title to the suit property being the property register Ex.A1 and when the same does not contain the suit property as such, in such view of the matter, the Courts below are found to be justified in not acceding to the plaintiff's case.