High Court dismissed Second Appeal in a property dispute. Court held unregistered settlement deed void under Transfer of Property and Registration Acts. Ruling on registered second deed and lack of clean hands barred injunction.
Second Appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 04.06.2013
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. RAJASURIA
S.A.No.304 of 2013
Viswalingam @ Mayavel .. Appellant/Defendant
Balasubramanian .. Respondent/Plaintiff
This Second Appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2012, passed in A.S.No.15 of 2012 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram, reversing the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2012 in O.S.No.174 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Chidambaram.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Sivarathanan
This Second appeal is focussed animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2012 passed in A.S.No.15 of 2012 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram, reversing the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2012 in O.S.No.174 of 2008 passed by the Additional District Munsif, Chidambaram.
The plaintiff while he was a minor, one Ramasamy Padayachi executed an unregistered settlement deed dated 31.08.1954 relating to four cents of land worth Rs.50 in favour of the minor, citing the minor's father as the guardian. Ever since that time, the said guardian was in possession and enjoyment of the said four cents of land and on the plaintiff attaining majority, the said property was handed over to him and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. While so, the defendant who is a neighbour, having no right over it attempted to trespass into it; whereupon the suit for injunction was necessitated.
impugning the plaint averments, the defendant filed the written statement, which would tersely and briefly run thus:
Originally an extent of 12 cents of land including the suit property belonged to one Rangasamy Padayachi, who had three sons namely (1) Poovaragamoorthy, (2) Kuppusamy and (3) Ramasamy. The settlement deed referred to in the plaint is a forged and fabricated one, under which the plaintiff cannot claim any right or title. The defendant's father on two occasions purchased an extent of four cents and five cents, totally nine cents from Poovaragamoorthy, leaving three cents on the eastern side out of the twelve cents. As such, the suit is a misconceived one and it is bad for suppression of material of facts. Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
"(1) Whether the first Appellate Court is justified in not applying section 90 of the Evidence Act for the Settlement deed dated 31.08.1954 (Exhibit A1), is sustainable in law?
(2) Whether the conclusion of the first Appellate Court that the subsequently executed settlement deed Exhibit B1 sic (Ex.B3) dated 11.06.1955 is a valid document, is sustainable in law, without setting aside the earlier settlement deed dated 31.08.1954 (Exhibit A1) by the same settlor in respect of the same property?
(3) Whether the first Appellate Court is justified in denying the relief in a suit for permanent injunction when the possession and enjoyment of suit property has been established by the Appellant beyond doubt, is sustainable in law?
(4) Whether the first Appellate Court is justified in dismissing the suit without appreciating the oral evidence
in its entirety but appreciating the above oral and documentary evidence at fraction is sustainable in law?"
(extracted as such)
"59. Section 100 CPC provides for a second appeal only on the substantial question of law. Generally, a second appeal does not lie on question of facts or of law. In SBI v. S.N.Goyal (2008) 8 SCC 92, this Court explained the terms "substantial question of law" and observed as under: (SCC p.103, para 13)
"13......The word "substantial" prefixed to 'question of law' does not refer to the stakes involved in the case, nor intended to refer only to questions of law of general importance, but refers to impact or effect of the question of law on the decision in the lis between the parties. 'Substantial questions of law' means not only substantial questions of law of general importance, but also substantial question of law arising in a case as between the parties ......any question of law which affects the final decision in a case is a substantial question of law as between the parties. A question of law which arises incidentally or collaterally, having no bearing on the final outcome, will not be a substantial question of law......There cannot, therefore, be a straitjacket definition as to when a substantial question of law arises in a case."
(emphasis added)
Indubitably and indisputably the 12 cents of land including the suit property originally belonged to one Rangasamy Padayachi, who had three sons namely (1) Poovaragamoorthy, (2) Kuppusamy and (3) Ramasamy. The precise case of the plaintiff is that the said Rangasamy Padayachi, as per Ex.A1 dated 31.08.1954, the unregistered settlement deed, settled an extent of four cents of land on the eastern extreme of the said 12 cents of land in favour of the plaintiff, citing the plaintiff's father as guardian.
transferred without any registered deed. Such a proposition is basically and fundamentally wrong. If a sale deed is executed relating to a property worth less than Rs.100/-, then only no registration is required. But in respect of a settlement deed even if it relates to a property less than Rs.100, it requires registration compulsorily. This aspect has not been considered at all by the Courts below.
Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act is extracted hereunder for ready reference:
"54. “Sale” defined.-- “Sale” is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part-paid and part-promised.
Sale how made.-- Such transfer, in the case of tangible immovable property of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, or in the case of a reversion or other intangible thing, can be made only by a registered instrument.
In the case of tangible immovable property of a value less than one hundred rupees, such transfer may be made either by a registered instrument or by delivery of the property.
Delivery of tangible immovable property takes place when the seller places the buyer, or such person as he directs, in possession of the property.
Contract for sale.-- A contract for the sale of immovable property is a contract that a sale of such property shall take place on terms settled between the parties.
It does not, of itself, create any interest in or charge on such property."
(emphasis applied)
certain existing moveable or immovable property made voluntarily and without consideration, by one person, called the donor, to another, called the donee, and accepted by or on behalf of the donee.
Acceptance when to be made.-- Such acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor and while he is still capable of giving.
If the donee dies before acceptance, the gift is void.
For the purpose of making a gift of immovable property, the transfer must be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on behalf of the donor, and attested by at least two witnesses.
For the purpose of making a gift of movable property, the transfer may be effected either by a registered instrument signed as aforesaid or by delivery.
Such delivery may be made in the same way as goods sold may be delivered."
"17. Documents of which registration is compulsory
(1) The following documents shall be registered, if
the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No. XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, (20 of 1866) or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, (7 of 1871) or the Indian Registration Act, 1877, (3 of 1877) or this Act came or comes into force, namely:
(a) instruments of gift of immovable property
(b) other nontestamentary instruments which purport
or operate, to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property.
(emphasis supplied)
plaint itself was not filed properly. The bare suit for injunction suppressing Ex.B3, would expose the plaintiff's case that it is unworthy of being processed successfully before the Court. The popular legal adage is "He who seeks equity should do equity and he who comes to equity must come with clean hands." The legal remedy of injunction is an equitable one and the plaintiff who is guilty of the maxim "Supressio veri, suggestio falsi : Suppression of the truth is [equivalent to] the suggestion of what is false" is not entitled to any relief.
(i) 1973(1) MLJ 44 [Velayudham Pillai vs. Sandhosa Nadar and others]
(ii) 1995(1) MLJ 426 [Kuppuswami Nainar vs. The District Revenue Officer, Thiruvannamalai and others]
(iii) 1998 (I) CTC 630 in Srinivasan and six others Vs. Sri Madhyarjuneswaraswami, Pattavaithalai, Tiruchirapally District by its Executive Officer at Pattavaithalai Devasthanam and five others.
(iv) 2008(7) MLJ 1183 [Venkatachalam (died) and others vs. Rajammal and others]
(v) 2009(3) CTC 493 R.Pannerselvam vs. A.Subramanian and another]
The above precedents would connote and denote that mere patta would not confer title.
Poovaragamoorthy, who happened to be one among the three sons of Rangasamy Padayachi. For taking a plea, there should be locus standi on the part of the party concerned. At this juncture, I would like to recollect the concept locus standi as found set out in the Black's Law Dictionary:
Locus Standi : The right to bring an action or to be heard in a given forum.
In the result, I could see no merit in this appeal.
Accordingly, this Second Appeal same stands dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
Sd/
Deputy Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub.Asst.Registrar
To
1. The Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram.
2. The Additional District Munsif, Chidambaram.
1 CC to Mr.M.Sivarathanan, Advocate, S.R.No.27754
S.A.No.304 of 2013
SGL(CO)
JJM 10.07.2013
3 issues framed by the court
Is a settlement deed concerning immovable property allowed to be unregistered irrespective of the property value?
Does subsequent execution of a registered settlement deed invalidate the claim under an earlier unregistered deed?
Is a plaintiff entitled to equitable relief when they have suppressed material facts regarding title documents?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India v. Ibrahim UddinReferred¶29
2012(8) SCC 148 Union of India v. Ibrahim Uddin and another · Who else cites this
SBI v. S.N. GoyalReferred¶30
SBI v. S.N.Goyal (2008) 8 SCC 92 · Who else cites this
Velayudham Pillai vs. Sandhosa NadarReferred¶73
1973(1) MLJ 44 Velayudham Pillai vs. Sandhosa Nadar
Kuppuswami Nainar vs. The District Revenue OfficerReferred¶74
1995(1) MLJ 426 Kuppuswami Nainar vs. The District Revenue Officer
Srinivasan and six others vs. Sri Madhyarjuneswaraswami PattavaithalaiReferred¶75
1998 (I) CTC 630 Srinivasan and six others vs. Sri Madhyarjuneswaraswami Pattavaithalai
Venkatachalam (died) and others vs. Rajammal and othersReferred¶76
2008(7) MLJ 1183 Venkatachalam (died) and others vs. Rajammal and others
R. Pannerselvam vs. A. SubramanianReferred¶77
2009(3) CTC 493 R.Pannerselvam vs. A.Subramanian and another
3 provisions across 2 enactments
VISWALINGAM @ MAYAVEL
BALASUBRAMANIAN
G. RAJASURIA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
