2012 (4) TMI 572 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the plaintiff has the right to possession and enjoyment of the suit property? Whether the plaintiff and his father have obtained right of enjoyment through adverse enjoyment? As per the averments on the defendant s side, is it true that the plaintiff s father in the capacity of the watchman of the suit property has been in enjoyment of the suit property? Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a relief of permanent injunction as prayed for by him? Whether the plaintiff Association is competent to file this case? Whether the plaint property belongs to the plaintiff s club? Is it right that the defendant s father Appadurai Pillai in the capacity of a Watchman, has been maintaining the suit property? When there is a Second Appeal pending before the High Court in S.A. No.1923 of 2002 against the judgment and decree of the Court of the District Munsif in O.S. No. 1143 of 1994 is sustainable. Whether the defendant has acquired the right of possession in the plaint property due to adverse possession? Whether this case has been procedurally evaluated for the court fee and jurisdiction? Is the Court competent to try this Court? To what other relief is the plaintiff entitled to?

Issues Involved:
1. Right to possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
2. Adverse possession claim by the appellant.
3. Appellant's father's status as a Watchman.
4. Entitlement to permanent injunction.
5. Competency of the respondent-Society to file the suit.
6. Ownership of the suit property by the respondent-Society.
7. Procedural evaluation for court fee and jurisdiction.
8. Competency of the court to try the case.
9. Reliefs entitled to the parties.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Right to Possession and Enjoyment of the Suit Property:
The trial court found that the appellant's father was employed as a Watchman by the respondent-Society and allowed to stay in the suit property in that capacity. The appellant continued to stay after his father's death in the same capacity. The property was owned by the respondent-Society, and the appellant's occupation was permissive, not as an owner.

2. Adverse Possession Claim by the Appellant:
The trial court determined that the appellant's father was employed as a Watchman on a petty monthly salary and stayed in the suit property in that capacity. The appellant did not acquire the property by adverse possession. The First Appellate Court's reversal of the trial court's judgment was not justified as the appellant failed to prove adverse possession.

3. Appellant's Father's Status as a Watchman:
The trial court found that the appellant's father was employed as a Watchman by the respondent-Society, and this was confirmed by the July 1949 register. The appellant's father's occupation of the property was solely in the capacity of a Watchman, and the appellant continued in the same capacity after his father's death.

4. Entitlement to Permanent Injunction:
The trial court held that a person in wrongful possession is not entitled to be protected against the lawful owner by an order of injunction. The appellant had concealed vital facts and did not approach the court with clean hands, thus not entitled to the discretionary relief of injunction. The First Appellate Court's judgment granting relief of injunction due to long possession was reversed by the High Court.

5. Competency of the Respondent-Society to File the Suit:
The trial court confirmed the respondent-Society's competency to file the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The High Court upheld this finding, reversing the First Appellate Court's contrary judgment.

6. Ownership of the Suit Property by the Respondent-Society:
The trial court and High Court both affirmed that the suit property belonged to the respondent-Society. The appellant's father's role as a Watchman did not confer any ownership rights to the appellant.

7. Procedural Evaluation for Court Fee and Jurisdiction:
The trial court and High Court found that the case had been procedurally evaluated for court fee and jurisdiction correctly. The First Appellate Court's contrary findings were set aside.

8. Competency of the Court to Try the Case:
The trial court and High Court confirmed that the court was competent to try the case. The First Appellate Court's reversal of this finding was not justified.

9. Reliefs Entitled to the Parties:
The High Court, reversing the First Appellate Court, restored the trial court's judgment, dismissing the appellant's claims and granting relief to the respondent-Society. The appellant was directed to vacate the premises within two months, failing which the respondent-Society could seek police assistance for eviction.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed with nominal costs of Rs. 25,000 to be paid by the appellant within two months. The appellant was directed to vacate the premises within two months and hand over peaceful possession to the respondent-Society. The High Court's judgment was upheld, emphasizing the importance of truth in judicial proceedings and discouraging frivolous litigation.

← Previous Next →