Though there is some discrepancy in respect of extent, it will not prevail - four boundaries alone will prevail.
Citation
N. Valliammal (Dead) & Another Versus M. Kanniah & Others
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. NAGAMUTHU
Head Note
Grant of Permanent Injunction – Plaintiff filed suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction against Defendants from in any manner interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit property – During pendency of suit, suits were filed by Defendants-Respondents for permanent injunction against Plaintiff and his son – Trial Court dismissed suit of Plaintiff and decreed the suits filed by Defendants as prayed for – Plaintiff’s son-Appellant filed appeals, same was dismissed by first Appellate Court –
Court Held – Appellant’s father had purchased certain land in one single survey number – But perusal of general power of attorney will go to show that entire extent purchased is covered in general power of attorney by means of four boundaries – Though, the deed of general power of attorney mentions extent of land going by four boundaries in deed of general power of attorney, it is crystal clear that Appellant’s father and her sons had not retained any portion of land – There is no indication in general power of attorney that any portion in and out of 1 acre 36 cents is retained by Appellant’s father and her sons – Description of property made in plaint also does not indicate as to where this property lies out of the total extent of 1 acre 36 cents – As suit property has not been described in identifiable manner – In case where, the Plaintiff has sought for declaratory decree in respect of title and for permanent injunction to protect his alleged possession, it is for him to plead and to prove same – Appellant has not proved his case at all – Therefore, the Courts below are right in dismissing suit of Appellant – Courts below have rightly held that Respondents in suits are in possession and enjoyment of their respective suit property – There is no substantial question of law at all warranting admission of these second appeals – Appeals dismissed.
(Paras 21, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29)
Comparative Citations:
2016 (2) CTC 77, 2016 (2) MWN(Civil) 189, 2016 (1) MLJ 878,
Court Held – Appellant’s father had purchased certain land in one single survey number – But perusal of general power of attorney will go to show that entire extent purchased is covered in general power of attorney by means of four boundaries – Though, the deed of general power of attorney mentions extent of land going by four boundaries in deed of general power of attorney, it is crystal clear that Appellant’s father and her sons had not retained any portion of land – There is no indication in general power of attorney that any portion in and out of 1 acre 36 cents is retained by Appellant’s father and her sons – Description of property made in plaint also does not indicate as to where this property lies out of the total extent of 1 acre 36 cents – As suit property has not been described in identifiable manner – In case where, the Plaintiff has sought for declaratory decree in respect of title and for permanent injunction to protect his alleged possession, it is for him to plead and to prove same – Appellant has not proved his case at all – Therefore, the Courts below are right in dismissing suit of Appellant – Courts below have rightly held that Respondents in suits are in possession and enjoyment of their respective suit property – There is no substantial question of law at all warranting admission of these second appeals – Appeals dismissed.
(Paras 21, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29)
Comparative Citations:
2016 (2) CTC 77, 2016 (2) MWN(Civil) 189, 2016 (1) MLJ 878,
Comments
Post a Comment