This second appeal challenges a decree for delivery of possession and the admission of unregistered evidence in a suit for recovery of property. The High Court held that the Registration Act was not in force in Pondicherry at the time of the sale and dismissed the appeal.
Second appeals dismissed with no 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
Reserved on :28.11.2016 Pronounced on :07.12.2016
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
Second Appeal Nos.1390 and 1391 of 1998 and C.M.P.Nos.13218 of 1998 and 13219 of 1998
1.G.Kalyanasundaram(died) 2.Jayakodi (2nd appellant is brought on record as LR of the deceased sole appellant vide C.M.P.No.307 of 2000 dated 11.01.2000 .. Appellants in S.A.No.1390 of 1998 1.Govindasamy @ Sakkarai (deceased) 2.G.Kangambujam 3.G.Murugaiyan 4.G.Suresh 5.G.Umamaheswari (appellants 2 to 5 brought on record as LRS of the deceased sole appellant vide order of Court dated 15.11.2016 made in C.M.P.Nos.18152 to 18154 of 2016 in S.A.No.1391 of 1998) ..Appellants in S.A.No.1391 of 1998 /vs/
1.V.Arunachalam (deceased) 2.A.Rajeswari 3.A.Natarajan 4.A.Sivarajan 5.A.Karthikeyan Jeyapal 6.K.Vasanthi 7.R.Saroja 8.B.Manoranjitham 9.Mallika (R2 to R9 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased sole respondent vide. C.M.P.No.469 & 470 of 1999 dated 11.01.2000) .. Respondents in S.A.No.1390 & 1391 of 1998
Prayer in S.A.No.1390 of 1998: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 23.02.1998 in A.S.No.42 of 1997 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Karaikkal confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.07.1997 in O.S.No.628 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Karaikkal, Union Territory of Pondicherry.
Prayer in S.A.No.1391 of 1998: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 23.02.1998 in A.S.No.45 of 1997 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Karaikkal confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.07.1997 in O.S.No.609 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Karaikkal, Union Territory of Pondicherry.
In both cases:
For Appellants :Mr.R.Selvakumar in both the appeals For Respondents:Mr.A.Muthukumar R2 to R9 in both the appeals R1 died -----COMMON JUDGMENT
In both the appeals, the defendant is the appellant herein. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, these second appeals are preferred.
Govindasamy @ Sakarai. The said suit was dismissed for misjoinder of cause of action. Hence, two separate suits in O.S.Nos.628 of 1996 and 609 of 1996 respectively were filed for the relief of recovery of possession, one against Kalyanasundaram and another one against Govindasamy @ Sarkarai. The defendants denying the title of the plaintiff claimed that they are the permissive occupants under Dharmapuram Adeenam for more than 50 years, which is the actual landlord. Therefore, the suit for possession is not maintainable.
“1.Whether the Courts below are right in delivering a judgment in contravention of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act?
2.Whether the Courts below are right in accepting the evidence of Temple authorities made in O.S.No.26/1992, in the present suit, in contravention of Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act?”
This submission is totally untenable because the property is situated in the Union Territory of Pondicherry, Karaikal Region, Thirunalaru. Till 08.01.1969, the Registration Act, 1908 was not adopted by the Union Territory Government and notarial sale was permissible and prevalent, without registration. The Ex.A4sale deed is dated 30.09.1957 and at that point of time, the Registration Act, 1908 was not enforced within the Union Territory of Pondicherry. Therefore, there is no substance in the above said submission.
11.The defendant has called six witnesses in the earlier proceedings to prove his claim that the plaintiff is not the owner of the suit property. However, these witnesses turned hostile, not supported the case of the defendant. If the defendant/appellant still had a case on this score, he could have very well called for the records of the Devasthanam/temple and established his case that the plaintiff is not the titleholder. The defendant has failed to do so.
12.Therefore, in the light of the other evidence, Ex.A6 pales to insignificance. Therefore, the admissibility of Ex.A6 by the trial Court nowhere prejudiced the case of the defendant and hence, this question of law is also unsustainable.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS V )
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
To
1.The Additional District Judge, Karaikkal
2.The Principal District Munsif, Karaikkal, union Territory of Pondicherry.
+2 cc's to Mr.A.Muthukumar,advocate,sr.71918
+2 cc's to Mr.R.Selvakumar,advocate,sr.72204 & 205.
kk(co) krd 4/1
S.A.Nos.1390 and 1391 of 1998
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the courts below were right in delivering a judgment in contravention of Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act regarding an unregistered sale deed.
Whether the courts below were right in accepting the evidence of the temple authorities in contravention of Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act.
3 provisions across 3 enactments
G.Kalyanasundaram
Jayakodi
Govindasamy
G.Kangambujam
G.Murugaiyan
G.Suresh
Dr. Justice G.Jayachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
