Madras High Court
Marimuthu vs Pandi@Annamalai on 23 September, 2020
Author: N.Seshasayee
Bench: N.Seshasayee
S.A(MD)No.385 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Date: 23.09.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
S.A(MD)No.385 of 2020
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.4456 of 2020
1.Marimuthu
2.Karuppiah :Appellants/Appellants/Plaintiffs
Vs.
1.Pandi@Annamalai
2.Murugesan
3.Muthukumar :Respondents/Respondent/Defendants
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, against the
judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Theni dated 18.12.2019 passed in
A.S.No.35 of 2016 concurring with the Judgment and Decree of the District
Munsif Court, Theni dated 19.10.2016 passed in O.S.No.48/2015.
For Appellant : Mr.V.P.Rajan
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs, who have lost their suit for declaration that a property described as measuring 12 feet X 130 feet in the second schedule to the plaint is a 1/6 http://www.judis.nic.in S.A(MD)No.385 of 2020 common pathway successively before the Courts below, have approached this Court with this Second Appeal. There are three defendants to the suit. Defendants 1 and 2 remained ex-parte and the suit was contested essentially by the third defendant. The parties would be referred to by their rank before the trial Court.
2.This is perhaps one of the strangest case ever to visit a civil Court. The plaintiffs allege that they trace title to the suit property Vide Ext.A.3 partition deed dated 19.05.1986, that since the date of the partition they have been using the property as a common pathway. The strangest portion comes now. In paragraph no.9 of the plaint, the plaintiffs allege that they anticipate the defendants to sell their portion of the property and that in the eventuality of the defendants ever selling their properties to third parties, they possibly may face some obstruction to their right then, therefore, to resolve it, they have instituted a suit for declaration.
3.In his written statement, the third defendant says that his father, plaintiffs 1 and 2 and the defendants 1 and 2 are brothers, that his father died when this defendant was very young and that since then, he hardly got any parental or emotional care from them and he further stated that defendants 1 and 2 and the 2/6 http://www.judis.nic.in S.A(MD)No.385 of 2020 plaintiffs are colluded and that they have filed repeated litigations against him with a view to disturb his property.
4.Both the Courts have found that except the rough sketch produced by the plaintiffs, no other document is produced to indicate that the second schedule to the plaint is treated as a pathway.
5.Heard the learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs.
6.The cause of action for this suit is plainly speculative and hypothetical in character. A suit is laid only when there is a cause of action such as where the plaintiff's title to the property or legal character, is seriously disputed, or when there is a real and genuine apprehension of invasion of plaintiff's right. Here neither is alleged, still, a suit is laid on the allegation that they apprehend a cause of action that might arise in future. Courts are constituted to decide a cause arising in present, and not any anticipated cause. Courts are not casinos, nor coffee shops for the litigants to misuse. It is time the litigants realise the Courts do serious business of real threat to somebody's right, and it does not entertain any speculative or hypothetical litigation. 3/6 http://www.judis.nic.in S.A(MD)No.385 of 2020
7.On going through the papers, this Court finds that the finding on fact of the Courts below stands to reasons but, what prevails more important is not the findings of the Courts below, since the suit itself has been laid without any cause of action.
8.In conclusion, this Court does not find any merit in the Second Appeal and the same is dismissed and the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Theni dated 18.12.2019 passed in A.S.No.35 of 2016 confirming the Judgment and Decree of the District Munsif Court, Theni dated 19.10.2016 passed in O.S.No. 48/2015 is hereby confirmed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
23.09.2020
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Tsg-2
4/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A(MD)No.385 of 2020
To
1.The Sub Court, Theni
2.The District Munsif Court,
Theni.
3.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5/6 http://www.judis.nic.in S.A(MD)No.385 of 2020 N.SESHASAYEE., J.
Tsg-2 S.A(MD)No.385 of 2020 23.09.2020 6/6 http://www.judis.nic.in