This second appeal challenged the reversal of a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The court held that patta does not confer title and the appellant failed to prove oral partition or ancestral ownership, thus dismissing the appeal.
The Second Appeal is 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.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.02.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
S.A.(MD)No.128 of 2011
Jothiammal .. Appellant/Appellant/Plaintiff
Vs.
M/s Kalaimaghal Sabha, Office at D.No.67-A, Pudhu Pallipalayam Road, Komarapalayam Town, Tiruchengode Taluk represented by its Joint Receiver S.Navaneethakrishnan and K.R.Hariharan. .. Respondent/Appellant/Defendant
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the decree and judgment passed in A.S.No.10 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Thanjavur, dated 27.09.2010 reversing the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.351 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif, Thanjavur, dated 19.11.2009.
For Appellant : Mr.T.A.Ebenezer For Respondent : Mr.R.Vijayakumar
JUDGMENT
Challenging the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.10 of 2010, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Thanjavur reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.351 of 2006, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thanjavur, the plaintiff has filed the above Second Appeal.
According to the plaintiff, the suit property along with other https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ property ancestrally belonged to her father Sivasamy Udayar, who died intestate 50 years ago leaving behind his three daughters
2
viz., Jothiammal, Thangapponnu and Pappa as his legal heirs. After his death, as per the oral partition held in a family, the suit property was allotted to the share of the plaintiff. As per the partition, she is in possession and enjoyment of the property as the absolute owner. Without her knowledge, an extent of 0.49.5 Ares of land was divided into two portions viz., eastern portion and western portion. The eastern portion was sold to one Ganaprakasam by some persons, who had no right over the property. The plaintiff came to know about the said fraudulent act. The western portion measuring an extent of 0.61 cents stands in the name of the plaintiff and she had applied for separate patta. The defendant nor his vendors have no right over the property. In these circumstances, the plaintiff has filed the suit.
3
“ (a) Whether the oral partition and other evidences are not enough in addition to revenue records to confer title over the property?
(b) Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in deciding the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties against the appellant without regarding Order 1 Rule 9 and Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C.?”
4
in favour of the plaintiff, that will not confer title in respect of the suit property on her. When the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction, the burden is on her to establish her case by adducing proper evidence. In the case on hand, the plaintiff has not established her case by oral and documentary evidences. In these circumstances, the lower Appellate Court rightly reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-II)
/True copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
Copy To: The Section Officer,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1 cc to M/s.T.A.Ebenezer, Advocate in SR.No. 6560
ssl
CSL/SV-MMS/23.02.2017 : 4P/5C
S.A.(MD)No.128 of 2011 06.02.2017
1 issue framed by the court
Whether oral partition and evidence are sufficient to confer title over property in the absence of revenue records establishing title?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Jothiammal
M/s Kalaimaghala Sabha
M. Duraiswamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
