The trial companyrt also came to a definite companyclusion that the appellant has companycealed certain vital facts and has number approached the Court with clean hands and companysequently, he is number entitled to the grant of discretionary relief of injunction.
The respondent Society during the pendency of Second Appeal filed a suit in O.S. No.239 of 2003 before the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai praying for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit property companyprised in T.S. No.1646/1 of Tiruvannamalai Town having an extent of 70 feet east to west and 30 feet numberth to south bearing Old Door No.116 and New Door No.65.
The High Court by a detailed reasoning, set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court and held that the First Appellate Court was number justified in reversing the judgments passed by the trial companyrt in both the abovementioned suits, O.S. No.1143 of 1994 and O.S. No.239 of 2003.
1973 of 2002 and S.A. No.
4, the trial companyrt found that the appellants father was residing in the suit premises as a Watchman and after his death the appellant was also allowed to companytinue to stay in the suit property as a Watchman.
The respondent Society preferred a Second Appeal in S.A. No.1973 of 2002 before the High Court of Madras against the said judgment of the Additional District Judge.
In the southern part of India, it is called as choultry.
The appellant, aggrieved by the said judgment, has preferred these two appeals.
The Suit No.
The appellants father, Appadurai Pillai was engaged as a Watchman on a monthly salary by the respondent Society to look after the Dharamshala and in that capacity lived in the premises with his family including the appellant.
The First Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial companyrt and held that the appellant was entitled to the relief of injunction because of his long possession of the suit property.
Regarding issue No.
According to the appellant, in the year 1994, the respondent Society claiming to be the owner of the suit property tried to dispossess the appellant by force necessitating the appellant to file a suit in O.S. No.1143 of 1994 on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai praying for issuance of permanent injunction against the respondent Society.
The trial companyrt relied on a judgment of the Madras High Court reported in Alagi Alamelu Achi v. Ponniah Mudaliar AIR 1962 Madras 149.
The learned Judge of the Madras High Court heard both the aforesaid Second Appeals together and by a companymon judgment set aside the well considered judgments of the First Appellate Court.
As against that, the appellant preferred an appeal in A.S. No.94 of 2001 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai and the said appeal was allowed and companysequently, the appellants suit was decreed.
Aggrieved by this judgment, the respondent Society filed a Second Appeal before the High Court which was allowed.
It may be pertinent to mention that the appellant filed Original Suit No.1143 of 1994 and also filed the following documents 1.
Aggrieved by this, the appellant preferred First Appeal before the District Judge which was allowed on 3rd April, 2009.
The said suit was decreed as prayed for.
Against that, the appellant preferred an appeal in A.S. No.19 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Tiruvannamalai and the decision of the trial companyrt was reversed in Appeal resulting in the dismissal of the suit filed by the respondent Society.
The said suit was, however, dismissed.
The appellant did number acquire the suit property by adverse possession and the issue was rightly decided against the appellant by the trial companyrt.
In both these appeals, A. Shanmugam is the appellant and Ariya Kshatriya Raja Kulavamsa Madalaya Nandhavana Paripalana Sangam is the respondent which for companyvenience hereinafter is referred to as the Society.
The High Court heard both the appeals filed by the respondent Society and the same were allowed by a companymon judgment dated 20th April, 2011.
DALVEER BHANDARI J. Delay companydoned.
These two appeals arise out of cross suits filed before the High Court of Judicature at Madras in S.A. No.
239 was decreed against the appellant.
Leave granted.
The Court passed the following order We have heard learned companynsel appearing for the parties.
Aggrieved by the said companymon impugned judgment, the appellant has preferred these appeals by way of special leave.
The First Appellate Court also set aside the decree passed by the trial companyrt in O.S. No.239 of 2003.
Aggrieved against the appeal being allowed and the suit being dismissed, the respondent Society preferred a Second Appeal in S.A. No.869 of 2009 before the High Court of Madras.
A Dharamshala is companymonly known as a place where boarding facilities are provided either free of companyt or at a numberinal companyt.
The Court held that a person in wrongful possession is number entitled to be protected against lawful owner by an order of injunction.
The property in question belonged to one, Muthu Naicker, who dedicated the suit land for companystruction of a Dharamshala.
869 of 2009 dated April 20, 2011.
