AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Sampath, J.—The present Transfer Appeal suit 713/1999 arises out of O.S. No. 176/93 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tuticorin. C.R.P. No. 181/1996 arises out of O.S. No. 288/93 on the file of the same Court. There was a joint trial and the learned District Munsif dismissed the suit in O.S. No. 176/1995 and decreed the other suit, by a common judgment. The circumstances leading to the filing of the suits are as under: An extent of 1. acre 82 cents belonged originally to one Ponnusamy Nadar. He executed a sale deed under EX. A. 1 dated 17.5.1954 in respect 1. acre 44 cents in favour of one Lakshm Nadar. In respect of the balance extra Ponnusamy Nadar executed a gift settlement under Ex.A. 3 on 3.10.1966 in favour of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 176/93, they being respectively his wife and sons. Lakshmana Nadar, the purchaser under Ex.A. 1, executed a settlement deed in favour of his daughter Kamalam Ammal, the first plaintiff in O.S. No. 176/1993. The plaintiffs in O.S.N0. 288/93 obtained a sale deed under Ex.B.26, dt. 2.5.1993 from Ponnusamy Nadar in respect of an extent of 22 cents out of the total extent of 1 acre 82 cents. The plaintiffs in O.S. No. 176/1993 alleging interference by the defendants therein filed the suit for injunction. The second defendant in O.S. No. 176/1993 is the mother of minor plaintiffs 1 and 2 aunt of the third plaintiff in O.S. No. 288/1993. They filed the suit u/s 6of the Specific Relief Act alleging forcible dispossession by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 176/1993 and seeking recovery of possession.
As already noted, there was a joint trial and the learned District Munsiff accepted the case of the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 288/1993 and granted a decree in their favour in respect of the subject matter of their suit. The other suit was dismissed. The reasoning by the learned District Munsif for granting relief in respect of 22 cents, the subject matter of sale by the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 288/1993, is that Ponnusamy Nadar notwithstanding the sale and settlement, continued to hold 01 that he was the owner of the property and the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 288/1993 had purchased the property. The learned District Munsif has considered this aspect of the matter in paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of his judgment. As regards possession, the learned District Munsif in para 16 has held that the ale by Ponnusamy Nadar in favour of the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 288/1993 is entitled to be protected u/s 41of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. For decreeing the suit in O.S. No. 288/1993, the learned District Munsif relied on the judgment in Kumar Kalyan Prasad and Another Vs. Kulanand Vaidik and Others, where in it was held that the relief against violation of possessory right is available even where symbolical possession delivered by due process of law is sought to be set at naught. The learned District Munsif has very elaborately considered the various documents filed in the suits and also the oral evidence let in by the parties. For invoking the provisions of Sec. 115C.P.C. against a decision u/s 6of the Specific Relief Act, there should have been grave injustice done or there had been no trial at all, or the suit should have been dismissed under some misapprehension of the scope of Sec. 6or where the decision is vitiated by an error of law or where no other remedy is open to the parties. The present case is not an extreme case to warrant interference u/s 115C.P.C. If a person is aggrieved by the decision in a suit filed u/s 6of the Specific Relief Act itself, it is open to the said person to institute a suit for establishing his title to the property and for an injunction restraining the opposite party from interfering with his alleged possession. Sec. 6 (4), running as follows. "Nothing in this section shall bar any person suing to establish his title to such property to recover possession there of." over rides any other general provision. The person aggrieved can always bring a regular suit either in addition to or instead of a suit under this Section. Both the Civil Revision Petition and the Transfer Appeal Suit are dismissed. However, it is open to the parties to take necessary steps for getting relief in accordance with law. No costs.