This second appeal challenged a decree confirming the plaintiffs' title to suit properties based on partition and possession. The High Court found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower courts' reliance on patta documents and sale deeds.
The second appeal is dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
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 : 21.12.2016
Pronounced on : 05.01.2017
Coram:
The Honourable Mr.Justice T.RAVINDRAN
Second Appeal No.227 of 2011
and
M.P.No.1 of 2011
1. Pattammal (deceased)
2. Lakshmanan
3. Kasi
4. Panchavarnam
5. Murugan
6. Mannammal
7. Abirami
8. Valli
( 1st appellant died. Appellants 2
& 3 recorded vide order of Court dated
14.11.2016 made in Memo dated
14.11.2016)
... Appellants
Versus
1. Vimala
2. Thenmozhi
3. Kumaravel
4. Malarvizhi
5. Uma Sundari
6. Perianayagi ... Respondents
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure
Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 18.08.2010 made in
A.S.No.17 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gingee,
confirming the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2009 made in
O.S.No.431 of 1990 on the file of the Principal District Munsif,
Gingee.
For Appellants .. Mr.T.Dhanasekaran
For Respondents.. Mr.L.Damodaran
JUDGMENT
The defendants in this Second Appeal have impugned the judgment and decree dated 18.08.2010 made in A.S.No.17 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gingee, confirming the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2009 made in O.S.No.431 of 1990
on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Gingee.
No.193, the first plaintiff had been granted patta, which had been marked as Ex.A2. The courts below, accordingly, did not place reliance upon either Ex.A1 or Ex.B1 as it has been found that the same had been issued to the respective parties in respect of the same properties by the revenue authorities. However, it has been found that Ex.A1 bears the date seal whereas Ex.B1 does not bear any date seal. Further, as rightly found by the courts below, even prior to the issuance of Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 pattas, the suit properties had been in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and the same could be seen from the Sagupadi Adangal, marked as Ex.A34 for the faslis 1391 to 1399. Therefore, based upon Ex.A34 Sagupadi Adangal, the courts below found that even prior to the issuance of Exs.A1 and A2 pattas, the suit properties had been enjoyed by the plaintiffs based upon the oral partition effected much earlier and accordingly, found that it is only the plaintiffs on the basis of their right in the suit properties had been enjoying the same as absolute owners thereof.
Nos.1 and 5 of the suit properties, the courts below affirmed that Sagupadi Adangal marked as Ex.A34 go to show that it is only the plaintiffs, who had been enjoying the same and accordingly, their names have been recorded in the Sagupadi Adangal.
have accepted the plea of the plaintiffs and rejected the case of the defendants. The findings of the courts below for upholding the plaintiffs' case and rejecting the defendants' case are found to be based upon the evidence on record and in accordance with law. No exception could be taken to the findings of the Courts below for accepting the plaintiffs' case and granting the reliefs sought for.
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
mra
To
1. The Subordinate Judge, Gingee.
2. The Principal District Munsif, Gingee.
+1 cc to Mr.L.Damodaran Advocate sr 1466
+1 cc to M/s.T.Dhanasekaran Advocate sr 1408
Second Appeal No.227 of 2011
rk(co)
aa31/01/2017
3 issues framed by the court
Whether substantial question of law is involved in the second appeal challenging the title and partition of suit properties?
Whether the findings of the courts below regarding the plaintiffs' title and possession should be interfered with?
Whether the issuance of patta to the defendants after rejection of their joint patta plea warrants setting aside the decree?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pattammal (deceased) and others
Vimala and others
T. Ravindran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
