Case Note & Summary
The appellant, plaintiff in O.S. No. 379 of 1998, filed a suit for perpetual and mandatory injunction against the respondents/defendants, claiming ownership of plaint schedule property (16 cents and 5 cents) purchased from Mariyammal via registered sale deed dated 23.08.1988. The plaintiff alleged that respondents 1-3 interfered with possession of a portion described as an old well and constructed a compound wall. The defendants contended that the disputed well (1¼ cents) was not part of the sale deed and that Mariyammal had settled it in favour of the Governor of Tamil Nadu (Gram Panchayat) via an unregistered settlement deed dated 06.08.1998. The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove prima facie title as the total extent purchased by Mariyammal was 23 cents, of which only 21 cents were sold to the plaintiff, leaving the disputed well outside. The first Appellate Court reversed, finding that the settlement deed (Exhibit-B8) was unregistered and not proved, and that the Commissioner's Report and boundaries in the sale deed supported the plaintiff's possession. The High Court, in second appeal, allowed the defendants' appeal, holding that the suit for mere injunction was not maintainable without a declaration of title and that the plaintiff failed to explain the extent discrepancy. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, holding that the High Court erred in reappreciating findings of fact under Section 100 CPC, as the findings were not perverse. The Court noted that the boundaries in the sale deed did not indicate any retained portion by the vendor, and the Commissioner's Report supported the plaintiff's possession. The suit for injunction was maintainable as the plaintiff's title was not seriously disputed. The impugned judgment was set aside and the civil appeals allowed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Reappreciation of Facts - High Court erred in reappreciating findings of fact which did not suffer from perversity or misreading of evidence - Held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC by interfering with concurrent findings of fact (Paras 11-12). B) Property Law - Suit for Injunction - Maintainability Without Declaration - Suit for mere injunction is maintainable when plaintiff's title is not seriously disputed and possession is established - Held that non-suiting the plaintiff on the ground of absence of prayer for declaration is unsustainable (Paras 11-12). C) Evidence - Sale Deed - Boundaries vs Extent - Boundaries in sale deed prevail over discrepancy in extent - Held that the High Court failed to appreciate that the boundaries in Exhibit-A1 did not show any retained portion by the vendor, and the Commissioner's Report supported the plaintiff's possession (Paras 10-11). D) Property Law - Transfer of Property - Unregistered Settlement Deed - An unregistered settlement deed (Exhibit-B8) cannot convey title to Gram Panchayat - Held that the defendants failed to prove vesting of disputed property in Gram Panchayat (Paras 5, 11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the second appeal and dismissing the suit for injunction on the ground that the plaintiff failed to seek a declaration of title, and whether the High Court erred in reappreciating findings of fact under Section 100 CPC.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court in Second Appeal (MD) No. 437 of 2010 and allowed the civil appeals. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Suit for mere injunction is maintainable without declaration of title when plaintiff's title is not seriously disputed
- High Court cannot reappreciate findings of fact under Section 100 CPC unless perverse
- boundaries in sale deed prevail over extent discrepancy
- unregistered settlement deed cannot convey title to Gram Panchayat
