Dismissed

Rajamony v. Nadira Beevi

Kerala HC13 Oct 2014SA/994/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a suit for declaration of title and injunction arising from competing sale deeds, the plaintiff established title via evidence while the defendant filed no oral or documentary evidence. The second appellant challenged the burden of proof allocation but failed to raise objections in lower appeals. The High Court held no question of law arose and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed. No costs awarded to the respondent.

Rajamony Vs Nadira Beevi — Partition | Kerala HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI

¶4

MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2014/21ST ASWINA, 1936

¶5

SA.No. 994 of 2001 (B)

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN AS NO.8/1998 OF THE SUB COURT, NEDUMANGAD DATED 08-01-2001

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OS 385/1994 OF THE PRINCIPAL MUNSIFF COURT, NEDUMANGAD DATED 13-02-1997

¶8

APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/DEFENDANT:

¶9

RAJAMONY, W/O CHANDRAMOHAN, RESIDING AT KESAVA MANDIRAM, BHARATHANNOOR, PANGODE VILLAGE.

¶10

BY ADV. SRI.R.S.KALKURA

¶11

RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT/PLAINTIFF:

¶12

NADIRA BEEVI, W/O ABDUL RASHEED, PANACHAKKODE, PEZHUVILA VEEDU, PANGODE, RESIDING AT PATHINAPARAYIL VEEDU, IRRO, BHARATHANNOOR, PANGODU VILLAGE

¶13

BY ADV. SRI.M.DINESH

¶14

THIS SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13-10-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

BKA/-

¶16

A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, J.

¶17

S.A. No. 994 of 2001

¶18

Dated this the 13^th day of October, 2014

¶19

J U D G M E N T

¶20

The defendant is the appellant.

¶21

The respondent approached the trial court for a decree of declaration of her title to the plaint item and also for a consequential injunction on the strength of Ext.A1 title deed. It was alleged that the plaint schedule property and the remaining property belonged to one Jagannadha Das, from whom, the plaintiff purchased the property as per sale deed No.1631/90 and the defendant purchased the remaining property from the aforesaid Jagannadha Das as per sale deed No.1630/90 on the same day. She further contended that the entire property is having an extent of 3 cents in which, the prior owner had constructed a building and a portion of the building falls within the plaint schedule property having an extent of one cent. She also alleges that there is no clear boundary

¶22

S.A. No. 994 of 2001

¶23

..2..

¶24

separating the plaint schedule property and the defendant's property. In that context, she has also prayed for fixation of boundary of property.

¶25

The appellant, who is the defendant, contended in her written statement that Jagannadha Das had not obtained any right over the plaint schedule property and the sale deed relied on by the plaintiff is a fraudulent one. According to her, no such property as described in the plaint schedule is in existence and the plaint schedule property and other properties are belonging to the 'Karanavar' of the defendant and after his death, the property devolved on her.

¶26

The trial court raised proper issues for trial permitting the parties to go for evidence. At the trial, on the plaintiff's side, PWs 1 and 2 are examined and Ext.A1 was marked. A commissioner, who was deputed by the trial court for identification of the property by a measurement, had filed a report and plan. Those documents were marked as Exts.C1 and C1(a). No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced by the

¶27

S.A. No. 994 of 2001

¶28

..3..

¶29

appellant/defendant. The trial court, after consideration of the evidence, decreed the suit. The

¶30

appellant/defendant took the matter in appeal, but, without success. It is with this background, the appellant has come up before this Court.

¶31

This Court, on admission, raised the following question of law;

¶32

“Were not the courts below wrong in

¶33

having casting the burden of proof on the defendant, who had contended that the plaintiff vendor did not have title over the property, and is not the plaintiff bound to prove the title of the vendor by production of previous documents?”

¶34

I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent.

¶35

I have perused the trial court judgment as well as the judgment of the lower appellate court. The plaintiff claimed title to the plaint schedule property by virtue of Ext.A1, which, according to the appellant, is a

¶36

S.A. No. 994 of 2001

¶37

..4..

¶38

fraudulent document. The appellant has set up a claim against the plaintiff and contended that the entire property belongs to her 'Karanavar'. Apart from the power of attorney holder of the plaintiff, who was examined as PW1, the document writer, who prepared Ext.A1, was also examined. He categorically stated that he knows the executant of Ext.A1 and he has seen the executant affixing his signature to the original of Ext.A1. He further stated that on the same day, the executant of Ext.A1 executed another sale deed in the name of the appellant. Unfortunately, these averments are not at all challenged by the appellant in cross-examination. The trial court, on the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff has succeeded in establishing her title to the plaint schedule property and therefore, granted a decree in her name. This view was endorsed by the appellate court also, which re-appreciated the evidence.

¶39

It was strenuously argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant was denied

¶40

S.A. No. 994 of 2001

¶41

..5..

¶42

the opportunity of examining the witnesses on her side. It was pointed out that though a witness schedule was filed, the trial court turned down the request of the appellant to get those witnesses examined. On going through the appeal memo filed by the appellant before the first appellate court, it can be seen that no such contention has been taken by the appellant before the first appellate court and such a contention is taken for the first time in this appeal.

¶43

On a consideration of the entire materials placed on record, this Court is of the definite view that no question of law has been wrongly decided by the courts below calling for an interference by this Court in the second appeal.

¶44

Therefore, the appeal fails; and accordingly, it is dismissed. No costs.

¶45

Sd/- A.V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JUDGE

¶46

bka/-

Rajamony v. Nadira Beevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajamony v. Nadira Beevi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Siju Mathew Vs Sinny Sebastian

A.R.Balakrishnan Nair Vs Prasannakumari

A.G.Vijayakumar Vs Pazhayannur Block Panchayat

The Managing Director Vs J. Alexander

Chellamma Vs P.C.G.M. Govt. U.P. School

N.E.Sarada Vs K.v.Govindan Nair