G.SURYANARAYANAN, vs N.SENTHIL,
- Court
- Madras High Court
2026:MHC:4452
SA(MD) Nos. 707 & 708 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 14-10-2026
Delivered on : 03 -11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE THIRUMAGAL
CHANDRASEKAR
SA(MD) Nos. 707 & 708 of 2013
CNR:{HCMD010021852013}
and MP(MD).Nos. 1 & 1 2013 in SA(MD).Nos.707 and 708 /2013
and MP(MD).Nos. 1 & 1 of 2014 in SA(MD).Nos.707 and 708 /2013
SA(MD) No. 707 of 2013
G.Suryanarayanan,
S/o.Ganapathy, Viswanathapuram, Dombuchery,
Bodinayakkanur, Theni District.
nd
.. 2 defendant / Appellant
Vs
1. R.Selvaraj,
S/o.R.Subramanian, Therkku Theru,
Thappugundu, Theni Taluk, Theni District.
st
.. 1 respondent / plaintiff
2. R.Maruthupandiar,
S/o.Ramaiya Thevar, D.No.27/4, Kurunchi
Illam, Periyakulam Thenkarai, Theni District.
3. P.Meiyazhagan,
S/o.O.Perumal Thevar, D.No.47, Jeyanthi
Nagar, Vadugapatti, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni
District.
4. O.Annakkodi,
S/o.Otcha Thevar, Karuvelnayakanpatti, Theni
District.
5. P.Elavarasu,
S/o.Perumal Thevar, 1st Street,
Karuvelnayakanpatti, Allinagar Municipality,
__________
Page 1 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:36:53 pm )
2026:MHC:4452
SA(MD) Nos. 707 & 708 of 2013
Theni District.
..Respondents / Defendants
SA(MD) No. 708 of 2013
G.Suryanarayanan,
S/o.Ganapathy, Viswanathapuram, Dombuchery,
Bodinayakkanur, Theni District.
nd
.. 2 defendant / Appellant
Vs
1. N.Senthil,
S/o.A.Natarajan, Ammapatti Village, Mottanuthu, Andipatti Taluk,
Theni District.
st
.. 1 respondent / plaintiff
2. R.Maruthupandiar,
S/o.Ramaiya Thevar, D.No.27/4, Kurunchi
Illam, Periyakulam Thenkarai, Theni District.
3. P.Meiyazhagan,
S/o.O.Perumal Thevar, D.No.47, Jeyanthi
Nagar, Vadugapatti, Periyakulam Taluk, Theni
District.
4. O.Annakkodi,
S/o.Otcha Thevar, Karuvelnayakanpatti, Theni
District.
5. P.Elavarasu,
S/o.Perumal Thevar, 1st Street,
Karuvelnayakanpatti, Allinagar Municipality,
Theni District.
.respondents / defendants
Common Prayer: Second Appeals filed under Section 100 CPC against
__________
Page 2 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:36:53 pm )
2026:MHC:4452
SA(MD) Nos. 707 & 708 of 2013
the Judgment and Decree passed in A. S. No. 28 & 29 of 2012 dated
31.01.2013 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Theni confirming the
judgment and decree of the Trial Court in O. S. No. 36 & 37 of 2009
dated 30.03.2012 on the file of District Munsif Court, Theni.
For Appellant in both cases : Mr.A.K. Samy
for Ms. M.Maria Vinola
For respondent No.1
In both cases : Mr. D.Malaichamy
COMMON JUDGMENT
These Second Appeals have been filed against the Judgments and
Decrees dated 31.01.2013 passed in A. S. Nos. 28 & 29 of 2012 on the
file of the Subordinate Court, Theni confirming the judgments and
decrees of the Trial Court dated 30.03.2012 made in O. S. Nos. 36 & 37
of 2009 on the file of District Munsif Court, Theni.
2. Since both Second Appeals arise out of substantially similar
facts, concern properties claimed under the same chain of title and
involve common questions of law and fact, they are taken up together for
hearing and disposed of by this common judgment.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i). The plaintiffs in O.S. Nos.36 and 37 of 2009, namely, Selvaraj
__________
Page 3 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:36:53 pm )
2026:MHC:4452
SA(MD) Nos. 707 & 708 of 2013
and Senthil, respectively, instituted the suits before the District Munsif
Court, Theni, seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the
defendants, their men, agents and persons claiming through them from
interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the respective
suit schedule properties situated in Survey No.192/1, measuring an extent
of 2 acres and 67 cents in Karuvelnayakkanpatti North Field, Allinagaram
Village, Theni District.
(ii). The case of the plaintiffs is that an extent of 89 cents on the
southern side of the aforesaid survey number originally belonged to
Ochath Thevar and Perumal Thevar, who had obtained the same under a
partition and were in possession and enjoyment thereof. They sold an
extent of 80 cents on 23.08.1962 and a further extent of 9 cents on
01.09.1962 to Raju Pillai under registered sale deeds. The said Raju
Pillai, in turn, conveyed portions of the property to various purchasers,
including Mariammal and others. According to the plaintiffs, the suit
properties were subsequently conveyed through the respective vendors
and their predecessors-in-title, and the plaintiffs acquired their respective
portions under the sale deeds executed in their favour. They claimed to
have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties pursuant to
their respective purchases.
__________
Page 4 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:36:53 pm )
2026:MHC:4452
SA(MD) Nos. 707 & 708 of 2013
(iii). The plaintiffs further alleged that the defendants 3 to 5
claimed to be the legal heirs of the original owners, namely, Ochath
Thevar and Perumal Thevar, and were attempting to create encumbrances
over the suit properties in favour of defendants 1 and 2. It was
specifically alleged that the defendants attempted to trespass upon and
interfere with the plaintiffs' possession, and hence, the respective suits
were instituted seeking permanent injunction.
(iv). Resisting the suits, the defendants denied the plaintiffs' title,
possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and disputed the
genuineness of the sale deeds relied upon by them. They contended that
the sale deeds relied upon by the plaintiffs did not confer any right or title
over the suit properties and that the defendants 1, 2 and 4 were in joint
possession and enjoyment thereof, with joint patta having been issued in
their names. It was further contended that the second defendant had
purchased the property from the first defendant, who was acting under a
power of attorney executed by defendants 3 and 5, and that the purchase
was made for valuable consideration.
(v). In the additional written statement, the defendants 3 and 5
__________
Page 5 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:36:53 pm )
2026:MHC:4452
SA(MD) Nos. 707 & 708 of 2013
contended that the suit properties originally belonged to Rama Thevar
and that the parties to the suit traced their respective claims through his
descendants. They disputed the genealogy and the particulars furnished
by the plaintiffs and contended that the suits were bad for non-joinder of
necessary parties. They further asserted that the property had been
mortgaged under a registered mortgage deed dated 08.06.1928, executed
by Vaikundasamy Naidu in favour of Rama Thevar, and that the
mortgage had subsequently been dealt with by the legal heirs of Rama
Thevar. They also relied upon the patta standing in the name of the third
defendant and contended that defendants 3 and 5 had executed a power of
attorney in favour of the first defendant, pursuant to which a portion of
the suit property had been conveyed to the second defendant. On these
grounds, they sought dismissal of the suits, also raising objections
regarding limitation and the adequacy of court fee.
(vi). The plaintiffs filed their respective suits denying the
allegations in the written statements and reiterating that they had validly
acquired the suit properties and were in possession and enjoyment
thereof. They contended that, as the defendants had no right over the suit
properties, there was no necessity to seek a declaration of title and that
the relief of permanent injunction was sufficient.
__________
Page 6 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:36:53 pm )
2026:MHC:4452
SA(MD) Nos. 707 & 708 of 2013
(vii). On the side of the plaintiffs, Selvaraj and Senthil were
examined as P.W.1 in their respective suits, and Exs.A1 to A4 were
marked. On the side of the defendants, the first, second and third
defendants were examined as D.W.1 to D.W.3, respectively, and the
defendants' documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B7 in O.S. No.36 of
2009 and Exs.B1 to B8 in O.S. No.37 of 2009.
(viii). Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence,
the trial Court, by separate judgments and decrees dated 30.03.2012,
decreed both suits, granting the relief of permanent injunction restraining
the defendants, their men, agents and persons claiming through them
from trespassing upon and interfering with the plaintiffs' possession of
the respective suit properties.
(ix). Aggrieved by the said judgments and decrees, the second
defendant, Suryanarayanan, preferred A.S. No.28 of 2013 against the
decree in O.S. No.36 of 2009 and A.S. No.29 of 2012 against the decree
in O.S. No.37 of 2009. The first appellate Court, by its respective
judgments and decrees, dismissed both appeals, confirmed the judgments
and decrees of the trial Court.
__________
Page 7 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:36:53 pm )
2026:MHC:4452
SA(MD) Nos. 707 & 708 of 2013
4. Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the
appellant / second defendant has preferred the present Second Appeals.
5. These second appeals were admitted on the following substantial
questions of law:
a) Whether the Judgment and Decree of the Courts below
in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of an alleged weakness
of the defendant case is legally maintainable?
b) Are not the Courts below committed an error in placing
the burden on the defendant in respect of the suit for
injunction simplicitor wherein it is for the plaintiff to
establish his possession to get the relief of injunction in his
favour?
c) Whether in law the suit for injunction simplicitor
without the relief of declaration in respect of vacant site is
maintainable?
d) Whether in law the suit is bad for Non-joinder of
necessary parties namely non inclusion of legal heirs of
Ramathevar?
e) Whether the plaintiff can maintain the suit for injunction
when the description of property is not clear?
f) Whether the plaintiff entitled to the relief of injunction
especially when there is no document with respect to
possession filed on his side?
6. Heard Mr. A. K. Samy, learned counsel for Mr. Maria Vinola
nd
appearing for the appellant / 2 defendant and Mr. D. Malaichamy
st
learned counsel appearing for the 1 respondent / plaintiff in both the
Second Appeals and perused the materials available on record.
__________
Page 8 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:36:53 pm )
2026:MHC:4452
SA(MD) Nos. 707 & 708 of 2013
7. The suit properties comprise Item Nos.1 and 2 situated in Survey
No.192/1, measuring an extent of 2 acres and 67 cents, in
Karuvelnayakkanpatti North field, Allinagaram Village, Theni District.
st
The 1 respondent/plaintiff claims title to an extent of 1,293 square feet
in Item No.1 and a further extent of 879 ⅜ Sq. Ft., in Item No.2, together
with the respective boundaries, under the sale deeds marked as Exs.A1
and A2, executed by Gurusamy, the power agent of Mariammal.
st
8. The case of the 1 respondent/plaintiff is that an extent of 89
cents on the southern side of the aforesaid survey number originally
belonged to Ochath Thevar and Perumal Thevar, who had acquired the
same under a partition and were in possession and enjoyment thereof.
They sold an extent of 80 cents on 23.08.1962 and a further extent of 9
cents on 01.09.1962 to Raju Pillai under registered sale deeds. The said
Raju Pillai, in turn, conveyed portions of the property to various
purchasers, including Mariammal, who purchased an extent of 10 cents
st
on 09.09.1962. The 1 respondent/plaintiff claims through the subsequent
conveyances and asserts that he purchased the suit properties under
Exs.A1 and A2 from Gurusamy, the power agent of Mariammal.
st
According to the 1 respondent / plaintiff, he has been in possession and
__________
Page 9 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:36:53 pm )
2026:MHC:4452
SA(MD) Nos. 707 & 708 of 2013
enjoyment of the suit properties pursuant to the said purchases.
st
9. Per contra, the appellant / second defendant disputes the 1
respondent / plaintiff's title and possession and contends that the suit
properties belong to the legal heirs of the original owners. According to
nd
him, the first defendant / 2 respondent, acting as the power agent of
defendants 3 and 5, conveyed the property in his favour for valuable
nd
consideration. The appellant / 2 defendant further relies upon a
mortgage deed dated 08.06.1928, and contends that the mortgage created
by Rama Thevar was subsequently redeemed by the persons claiming
through the original owners. In support of his claim, he relies upon
Ex.B7, a certified copy of a receipt for payment dated 03.04.2007, and a
certified copy of a partition deed dated 08.01.2008.
10. The principal contention of the learned counsel appearing for
st
the appellant / second defendant is that the 1 respondent / plaintiff has
not properly described the suit properties and has failed to implead all the
necessary parties. It is further contended that the rival claims and the
documents relied upon by the appellant / second defendant create a cloud
st st
over the 1 respondent / plaintiff's title and, therefore, the 1 respondent /
plaintiff ought to have sought a declaration of title in addition to the relief
of permanent injunction. According to the learned counsel, a suit for bare
__________
Page 10 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:36:53 pm )
2026:MHC:4452
SA(MD) Nos. 707 & 708 of 2013
injunction simpliciter is not maintainable in the circumstances of the
present cases.
11. It is also contended that the Courts below erred in appreciating
st
the documentary evidence and in arriving at the conclusion that the 1
respondent / plaintiff was entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. In
support of the aforesaid contentions, he relied upon the following
judgments:
1. The judgment of this Court reported in 2003 (1) CTC
345; 2003 (1) MLJ 722 in the case of S. Ramesh Babu v. R.
Bhaskar,
2. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
2021 SCC OnLine SC 675 in the case of Kayalulla Parambath
Moidu Haji v. Namboodiyil Vinodan,
3. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
(2006) 5 SCC 558 in the case of Anil Rishi v. Gurbaksh Singh.
4. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
(2008) 4 SCC 594 in the case of Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi
Reddy (Dead) by LRs., ; and
5. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in
(2021) 3 SCC 675 in the case of A. Subramanian v. R.
Panneerselvam, .
st
12. The learned counsel appearing for the 1 respondent/plaintiff,
on the other hand, supported the concurrent findings of the Courts below
__________
Page 11 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:36:53 pm )
2026:MHC:4452
SA(MD) Nos. 707 & 708 of 2013
st
and submitted that the 1 respondent / plaintiff had established his
possession over the suit properties through the sale deeds and the
antecedent conveyances. It was contended that the properties claimed by
st
the 1 respondent / plaintiff are distinct from those claimed by the
nd
appellant / 2 defendant and that the latter had failed to establish any
subsisting right over the suit properties. He further submitted that, in the
st
absence of a genuine cloud over the 1 respondent / plaintiff's title
requiring adjudication by way of declaration, a suit for permanent
injunction simpliciter is maintainable. In support of his contention the
learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:
1. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ,
reported in (2017) 1 SCC (Civil) 268 in the case of
Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (D) Through LRs v.
Muddasani Sarojana , and
2. The judgment of this Court reported in 2026 (4) CTC
759 in the case of P.S. Srinivasan @ N.S. Srinivasan and
Another v. B. Loganatha Mudaliar and Others.
13. The principal questions that arise for consideration are whether
st
the 1 respondent / plaintiff was entitled to maintain the suits for
permanent injunction without seeking a declaration of title, whether the
suits are liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties, and
whether the concurrent findings of the Courts below warrant interference
in these Second Appeals.
__________
Page 12 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:36:53 pm )
2026:MHC:4452
SA(MD) Nos. 707 & 708 of 2013
14. On a consideration of the pleadings and evidence, it emerges
that the parties trace their respective claims to the ancestral property
stated to have belonged to Rama Thevar. It is the case of the parties that
the property in Survey No.192/1 measuring an extent of 2 acres and 67
cents. The said Rama Thevar is stated to have had three sons, namely,
Ochath Thevar, Vaira Thevar and Nallakaruppu Thevan. Ochath Thevar,
in turn, is stated to have had three sons, namely, Ochath Thevar, Perumal
st
Thevar and Marichamy. The 1 respondent / plaintiff traces his claim
through the conveyances originating from Ochath Thevar and Perumal
nd
Thevar, whereas the appellant / 2 defendant asserts a competing right
through the legal heirs of the original owners. The rival claims must,
therefore, be examined with reference to the documentary evidence, the
identity of the properties and the evidence concerning possession.
st
15. The 1 respondent / plaintiff relies upon Exs.A1 and A2 to
establish his purchase of the suit properties. Exs.A3 and A4 are described
in the exhibit particulars as original sale deeds dated 15.02.2006 relating
to vacant house sites, including a sale deed executed by Krishnamoorthy
in favour of Senthil. The description furnished for Ex.A3 also refers to
transactions involving Gurusamy, Krishnamoorthy and Amudhavalli. The
__________
Page 13 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:36:53 pm )
2026:MHC:4452
SA(MD) Nos. 707 & 708 of 2013
evidentiary value of these documents has to be assessed in conjunction
with Exs.A1 and A2 and the oral evidence concerning the identity, extent
and possession of the suit properties.
16. The appellant/second defendant relies upon the mortgage deed
dated 08.06.1928 and contends that the mortgage created by Rama
Thevar was subsequently redeemed. In support of his claim, he relies
upon the certified copy of the receipt dated 03.04.2007, executed by
Ramaraj and Nagaiyasamy in favour of Ilavarasan, Meyyazhagan,
Annakodi and Perumal Thevar, evidencing the alleged payment towards
redemption of the mortgage, and the certified copy of the partition deed
dated 08.01.2008, executed by Ilavarasu, Pappammal, Sivandhammal,
Pandiyammal and Meyyazhagan. The appellant/second defendant relies
upon these documents in support of his claim regarding the alleged
redemption of the mortgage and the subsequent devolution of rights in the
property.
17. The trial Court examined the recitals of the documents relied
upon by the appellant / second defendant and found that the original
document relating to the extent of 89 cents was stated to have been
handed over upon redemption of the mortgage. However, the original title
__________
Page 14 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:36:53 pm )
2026:MHC:4452
SA(MD) Nos. 707 & 708 of 2013
document was not produced before the Court, and no satisfactory
explanation was offered for its non-production or for the circumstances in
which it was allegedly returned to the persons claiming through the
original owner. The trial Court, therefore, entertained doubts concerning
the evidentiary value of the documents relied upon by the appellant /
second defendant to establish the alleged redemption of the mortgage.
18. Ex.B7, being a receipt, and Ex.B8, being a partition deed, must
be considered according to their respective contents and legal effect.
Their mere production does not, by itself, conclusively establish either
the redemption of the mortgage or the appellant / second defendant's
entitlement to the specific suit properties. The appellant / second
defendant was required to establish the connection between the alleged
mortgage, its redemption, the subsequent devolution of rights and the
properties claimed by him. The Courts below, upon appreciating the
evidence, found that the appellant / second defendant had not
st
satisfactorily established such a connection so as to defeat the 1
respondent / plaintiff's claim to possessory protection.
19. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the
st
trial Court concluded that the properties claimed by the 1 respondent /
__________
Page 15 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:36:53 pm )
2026:MHC:4452
SA(MD) Nos. 707 & 708 of 2013
st
plaintiff and the appellant / second defendant were distinct. The 1
respondent/plaintiff's properties were identified as being situated in the
central southern portion of Survey No.192/1, whereas the property
claimed by the appellant / second defendant was stated to be situated in a
different portion. The trial Court further found that the appellant / second
st
defendant had failed to establish that the 1 respondent / plaintiff's
possession extended over the property claimed by him. The said finding
was affirmed by the first appellate Court.
st
20. The contention that the 1 respondent/plaintiff ought to have
sought a declaration of title must be considered in the light of the
principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anathula
Sudhakar case . The maintainability of a suit for permanent injunction
simpliciter depends upon the nature of the pleadings and the dispute
disclosed by the evidence. Where the plaintiff is in lawful possession and
the defendant merely attempts to interfere with such possession without
raising a genuine cloud over the plaintiff's title, a suit for injunction may
be maintainable. However, where the defendant raises a genuine dispute
concerning title and the adjudication of title is necessary to grant the
relief sought, the plaintiff may be required to seek a declaration of title,
st
together with consequential relief. In the present cases, the 1 respondent
__________
Page 16 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:36:53 pm )
2026:MHC:4452
SA(MD) Nos. 707 & 708 of 2013
/ plaintiff relies upon the sale deeds and the antecedent conveyances to
establish his claim to the suit properties. The Courts below have
st
concurrently found that the 1 respondent / plaintiff established his
possession and that the properties claimed by the appellant / second
defendant were distinct from the suit properties. The appellant / second
defendant’s reliance upon the alleged mortgage and its redemption was
also considered by the Courts below, which found that the documents
relied upon by him did not satisfactorily establish his entitlement to
st
interfere with the 1 respondent / plaintiff's possession. In these
circumstances, the mere denial of title by the appellant / second defendant
does not, by itself, render the suits for permanent injunction not
maintainable. The Judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
appellant / second defendant is not applicable to the facts of the present
case.
21. The objection concerning non-joinder of necessary parties must
likewise be examined with reference to the nature of the relief claimed.
st
The 1 respondent/plaintiff claims through Mariammal, whose power
agent executed the sale deeds relied upon by him. The suits seek
st
protection of the 1 respondent / plaintiff's possession against the alleged
st
interference of the defendants. The Courts below found that the 1
__________
Page 17 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:36:53 pm )
2026:MHC:4452
SA(MD) Nos. 707 & 708 of 2013
nd
respondent/plaintiff had established possession and that the appellant / 2
defendant had failed to establish a superior claim to the specific suit
properties. In the absence of a demonstrated omission of a party whose
presence is indispensable for the effective adjudication of the relief
claimed, the objection regarding non-joinder cannot, by itself, warrant
reversal of the concurrent findings. Having considered the oral and
st
documentary evidence, the Courts below found that the 1
respondent/plaintiff was entitled to protect his possession and that the
nd
appellant / 2 defendant had failed to establish that the properties
claimed by him were identical to the suit properties. No sufficient ground
has been demonstrated to displace those findings.
st
22. Accordingly, this Court holds that the 1 respondent/plaintiff
has established his claim on the basis of his own evidence and not merely
on the weakness of the defence, and that the Courts below have not
improperly shifted the burden of proof onto the defendants. The Court
further holds that the suits for bare injunction are maintainable on the
facts and circumstances of the case, the non-joinder of the legal heirs of
Rama Thevar is not fatal, and the suit properties have been sufficiently
identified by the evidence on record. The concurrent finding regarding
the plaintiff’s possession does not warrant interference under Section 100
__________
Page 18 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:36:53 pm )
2026:MHC:4452
SA(MD) Nos. 707 & 708 of 2013
of the CPC.
23. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the objections concerning the maintainability of
the suits for bare injunction, non-joinder of necessary parties and
appreciation of the rival documents do not warrant interference with the
judgments and decrees of the Courts below. The concurrent findings are
based upon the evidence considered by the Courts below, and no
sufficient ground has been made out for setting them aside.
24. Accordingly, both the Second Appeals are dismissed,
confirming the respective judgments and decrees passed by the Courts
below. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
03-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
T. RAJAPRABA
__________
Page 19 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:36:53 pm )
2026:MHC:4452
SA(MD) Nos. 707 & 708 of 2013
To
1. The Subordinate Court, Theni.
2. The District Munsif Court, Theni.
3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madurai.
__________
Page 20 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:36:53 pm )
2026:MHC:4452
SA(MD) Nos. 707 & 708 of 2013
THIRUMAGAL CHANDRASEKAR, J.
T. RAJAPRABA
SA(MD) Nos. 707 & 708 of 2013
and MP(MD).Nos. 1 & 1 2013 and 1 & 1 of 2014 in both appeals.
03-11-2026
__________
Page 21 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:36:53 pm )
2026:MHC:4452
SA(MD) Nos. 707 & 708 of 2013
__________
Page 22 of 22
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:36:53 pm )