Case Note & Summary
The second appeal arose from a suit for declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff K.Saroja Ammal against the defendants, including the appellants (defendants 1 and 2). The plaintiff claimed title to the suit property as the legal heir of her husband S.V.Krishnamoorthy, who had acquired the property under a partition deed dated 09.05.1967 and died on 30.09.1970. The plaintiff alleged that she permitted the business of S.V.Sons to be conducted in the suit property, but the second defendant (appellant) disconnected the service connection in the name of her husband and obtained a new connection in his own name, leading to revocation of permission. The trial court decreed the suit, and the first appellate court confirmed the decree. The appellants (defendants 1 and 2) filed the second appeal under Section 100 CPC. The High Court heard the counsel for the appellants and the standing counsel for respondents 1 to 4 (Tamil Nadu Electricity Board officials). The court noted that the appellants did not raise any substantial question of law and that the concurrent findings of fact were based on proper appreciation of evidence, including the partition deed and revenue records. The court held that the defendants were permissive occupants and failed to prove any independent title or adverse possession. The second appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the lower courts.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and first appellate court cannot be interfered with in a second appeal unless a substantial question of law is involved. The appellants failed to raise any substantial question of law. (Paras 1-12)
B) Property Law - Title and Possession - Declaration and Recovery - Partition Deed and Revenue Records - The plaintiff established title through a partition deed dated 09.05.1967 and subsequent inheritance. The defendants, who were permissive occupants, failed to prove independent title. The court upheld the decree for declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction. (Paras 3-11)
C) Evidence Act - Burden of Proof - Adverse Possession - The defendants did not plead or prove adverse possession. The permissive occupation did not confer any right, and the plaintiff's revocation of permission was valid. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the courts below erred in decreeing the suit for declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction without proper appreciation of evidence and whether any substantial question of law arises under Section 100 CPC.
Final Decision
Second Appeal dismissed. Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 31.03.2011 in A.S.No.1 of 2003 confirming the Trial Court decree dated 23.08.2000 in O.S.No.275 of 1996 are confirmed. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Law Points
- Title by inheritance
- Permissive occupation
- Revocation of licence
- Burden of proof on defendant to show independent title
- Section 100 CPC limited to substantial questions of law
Case Details
2025 LawText (MAD) (01) 458
S.A.No.1015 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011
Mr.R.Gururaj for appellants, Mrs.J.Hemalatha Gajapathy for R1 to R4
Arundathi Ammal (died) and R.Sivakumar
K.Saroja Ammal (died) rep. by Power Agent Mr.J.Sudhakar and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction.
Remedy Sought
Plaintiff sought declaration of title, recovery of possession of suit property and mandatory injunction against defendants 5 to 8 to disconnect electricity service connection.
Filing Reason
Plaintiff claimed title as legal heir of her husband S.V.Krishnamoorthy; defendants were permissive occupants who disturbed her title and obtained a new electricity connection in their name.
Previous Decisions
Trial Court decreed the suit on 23.08.2000 in O.S.No.275 of 1996; First Appellate Court dismissed appeal on 31.03.2011 in A.S.No.1 of 2003.
Issues
Whether the courts below erred in decreeing the suit for declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction.
Whether any substantial question of law arises under Section 100 CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the courts below erred in appreciating evidence and that the plaintiff failed to prove title.
Respondents supported the concurrent findings and argued that no substantial question of law was involved.
Ratio Decidendi
In a second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the High Court cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless a substantial question of law is involved. The plaintiff established title through a partition deed and inheritance, and the defendants failed to prove any independent title or adverse possession. Permissive occupation does not confer any right, and revocation of permission is valid.
Judgment Excerpts
The appellants are the defendants 1 and 2. The plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendants for seeking the reliefs of declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction against the defendants 5 to 8 to disconnect S.C.No.753/Diversion Road along with cost.
The Trial Court had decreed the suit as prayed. The First Appeal preferred by the defendants 1 to 4 has also been dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
The plaintiff had claimed title to the suit property as the legal heir of one S.V.Krishnamoorthy who is the owner of the suit properties.
The suit property has been allotted to the share of S.V.Krishnamoorthy under a partition deed dated 09.05.1967 entered into between himself and his brothers.
S.V.Krishnamoorthy died on 30.09.1970 and thereafter, the plaintiff has inherited the suit property as his legal heir.
Procedural History
The plaintiff filed O.S.No.275 of 1996 before the Subordinate Judge of Panruti seeking declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction. The suit was decreed on 23.08.2000. The defendants 1 to 4 appealed in A.S.No.1 of 2003 before the Additional District Judge (Fast Track Judge-II), Cuddalore, which was dismissed on 31.03.2011. The defendants 1 and 2 then filed the present Second Appeal No.1015 of 2011 before the Madras High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 100
