Dismissed

T. Mayavel v. K. Mathiazhagan

Madras HC13 Apr 2017SA/267/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC, the Madras High Court examined a property dispute involving the validity of two sale deeds and the extent of the property sold. Finding no substantial question of law arose from the evidence analysis by the first appellate court, the court dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal dismissed; no costs to either party; C.M.P. closed.

T. Mayavel Vs K. Mathiazhagan — Property and Title | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 13.04.2017

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN

¶5

S.A.No.267 of 2017

¶6

and

¶7

C.M.P.No.6238 of 2017

¶8

T.Mayavel .. Appellant Vs. 1. K.Mathiazhagan 2. Periyasamy

¶9

Megala @ Manimegalai .. Respondent

¶10

Second Appeals filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2016 in A.S.No.17 of 2015 on the file of the Additional District Sessions Court, Ariyalur, against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2012 in O.S.No.367 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Ariyalur.

¶11

For appellant : Mr.R.Sethuvarayar

¶12

JUDGMENT

¶13

The plaintiff is the appellant and the defendants are the respondents herein. The trial Court decreed the suit, whereas the first appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the suit.

¶14

The learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following substantial questions of law in the memorandum of grounds of appeal:

¶15

(i) Whether the sale deed in Document No.2978/2008 executed in favour of the first respondent herein is legally valid one ?

¶16

(ii) Whether the second and third respondents are having right to sell 74 Sq.Fts. to the first respondent in Survey No.89/2 ?

¶17

(iii) Whether D.W.1, in the sale deed in Document No.2978/2008 dated 14.11.2008 conveyed 74 Sq.Fts. binded on the earlier sale deed in Document No.847/2002 ? and

¶18

(iv) Whether the lower appellate Court ascertained the total extent of the second and third respondents ?

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

The sum and substance of the issue on hand is that the trial Court accepted the contention of the plaintiff that he is entitled to the property, but the first appellate Court held that the contention that the second and third respondents (D2 and D3) have no remaining property to sell to the first respondent/D1 except 74 Sq.Ft., is contrary to the evidence on record. It is contended by the appellant/plaintiff that the entire property had been sold out by the second and third respondents/D2 and D3 to the appellant/plaintiff through Ex.A-1 sale deed, dated 17.05.2002. The first appellate Court rightly relied on various decisions of this Court and taking into consideration the fact that the issue involved in the case is limited, as the other undisputed area also has been taken into consideration in deciding the suit, held in paragraph 14 that it is settled law that patta, though is a record for possession, yet it does not confer any title to a party, as held by the Supreme Court in catena of decisions. Thus, the first appellate Court rejected the contentions with regard to Ex.A-2 patta. Moreover, in paragraph 15, the first appellate Court held that the evidence of P.W.1 VAO, who deposed that the dispute is with regard to only 74 Sq.Ft. and as he also deposed with regard to the entire extent of suit property, his evidence will not in any way help the plaintiff. It further held that the first defendant purchased the property excepting 74 Sq.Ft. The first appellate Court held that P.W.2 in his evidence deposed that the way leading to the property, is only through the place where the said 74 Sq.Ft. exist. The first appellate Court further relied on Ex.C-2 sketch and Ex.C-1 report of the Advocate Commissioner and held that the plaintiff purchased the property from defendants 2 and 3 excepting 74 Sq.Ft., in Ex.A-1 sale deed, dated 17.05.2002.

¶21

On an analysis of the evidence available on record, this Court finds no question of law, much less substantial question of law arising for consideration in the Second Appeal. There being no merits, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. C.M.P. is closed.

¶22

Sd/Assistant Registrar //True Copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

¶25

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶26

Copy to

¶27

The Additional District Judge, Ariyalur.

¶28

The Principal District Munsif, Ariyalur.

¶29

+1cc to Mr.R.Sethuvarayar, Advocate, S.R.No.22578

¶30

S.A.No.267 of 2017
SS(CO)
RS(17/05/2017)

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

T. Mayavel v. K. Mathiazhagan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

T. Mayavel v. K. Mathiazhagan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Manivarma, Vs State Rep. by Its the Inspecto

A.Sriram, Aged 43 Years, Vs the State Rep. by

Senthil Kumar, Aged 37 Years, Vs State Rep. by

K.R.Kumar Vs Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

Kuppusamy Gounder Vs Perumal

Yasin Sheriff Vs M/S Radha Gas Service