SC Remands Property Injunction Case as Madras HC Ignored Evidence on Possession

P. Elaiyappan Vs Natarajan & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)

The Supreme Court considered appeals challenging a common judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 27.01.2023 in two second appeals arising from cross suits for permanent prohibitory injunction concerning the same property.

The dispute related to property originally owned by Ganapathy. In execution of a money decree against him, the property was sold through a court-conducted auction on 03.05.1991 to Ramasamy, who subsequently sold it to the appellant through a sale deed dated 15.10.1991. The respondent, however, claimed ownership on the basis that Ganapathy had executed a registered Will in his favour before his death.

Read HC Judgment in this case: Possession Alone Cannot Decide Title in Property Disputes: Madras HC

Both parties instituted separate suits seeking permanent injunction, each asserting possession over the same property and alleging unlawful interference by the other. The trial court decreed the appellant’s suit and dismissed the respondent’s suit. On appeal, the first appellate court dismissed both appeals and affirmed the trial court’s decree.

While no specific issue was framed on possession, both parties led evidence on that aspect. The first appellate court examined documentary and oral evidence and concluded that the appellant was in possession of the property. The court referred to various records including patta issued in the appellant’s name, factory-related registrations, tax payments, cultivation records, electricity payment documents, and other government records indicating that the appellant was operating a tapioca mill on the property. Witness testimony and the commissioner’s inspection report were also considered to support the finding that the appellant was in possession.