Kasthuri vs Saraswathi on 30 November, 2021
7. The learned counsel for the Appellants has submitted that the suit property
is a portion of the main property and that the identity of the suit property is
not clear and that the property identified by the Advocate Commissioner is
not the suit property and that without the prayer for declaration of title, the
suit seeking mere permanent injunction is not maintainable and that the kist
receipts produced by the Plaintiffs are not relating to the suit property and
that the courts below ought to have considered the patta under Ex.D1 and
D2, which stood in the name of the predecessor in title through whom the
Defendants have purchased the same under Ex.B1 and Ex.B2. The learned
counsel would further submit that the Plaintiff have not proved their physical
possession of the suit property, as on the date of the presentation of the suit
and for such reasons, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel
would rely on the decisions reported in 2008 6 CTC 237 (Anathula Sudhakar
Vs. P.Buchi Reddy), 2020 4 CTC 101 (Ramalingam Vs. Jayaraman), 2006
2 CTC 24 (Lalitha Vs. Selvaraj), 2020 5 MLJ 595 (Poornasamy Vs.
Natarajan), 2020 6 CTC 822 (K.Subbulakshmi @ Pappayee Vs.
C.V.Ramasamy Pillai), 2020 4 CTC 783 (Panneerselvan Vs. M.Natesa
4/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(MD).No.168 of 2015
Mudaliar) and the judgement of the Honourable Supreme Court, dated
07.09.2021 made in Civil Appeal Nos.5575-5576 of 2021 (Kayalulla
Parambath Moidu Haji Vs. Nambooiyil Vinodan).