The Madurai Bench dismissed a second appeal in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The court held that an unregistered sale deed could not pass title and the plaintiff failed to prove ownership via evidence other than a patta.
Second Appeal dismissed with 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.61 of 2011
Maruthiah(died) 1.M.Parvathi 2.M.Saravanan 3.M.Malathi .. Appellants/Appellants
Vs. Pushpam .. Respondent/Respondent/2nd Defendant
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli in A.S.No.9 of 2008, dated 23.10.2009 confirming the judgment and decree of I Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli in O.S.No.54 of 1992, dated 30.11.2007.
For Appellants : Mr.V.Kannan For Respondent : Mr.H.Arumugam ***
JUDGMENT
The above Second Appeal arises against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.9 of 2008, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.54 of 1992, on the file of I Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli.
According to the plaintiff, the suit property was allotted to his father by the Harijan Welfare Department and that he was in possession and enjoyment of the same till his death. After his death, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The patta was also issued in favour of the plaintiff. The first defendant has no manner of right, title or possession over the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ suit property. The first defendant was conducting a chit and the plaintiff was subscriber to the chit. The plaintiff has paid all
2
the amount due to the first defendant. However, the first defendant has not returned the document obtained at the time of receiving the price amount. Due to this, there is some difference of opinion between the plaintiff and the first defendant. In these circumstances, the first defendant tried to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property. In these circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. At the time of admission of the above Second Appeal, the following Substantial Questions of Law arose for consideration:
3
“1. Whether the Courts below have committed an error in relying on an unregistered sale deed marked as Ex.B.1 to negative the plea for declaration of title made by the original plaintiff, when the prior title of the original plaintiff is not disputed?
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-II)
/True copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
+1 CC to M/s.V.KANNAN , Advocate, SR No. 6228
SSL
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ MAS/PM-PN/20.03.2017/3P/5C
S.A.(MD)No.61 of 2011 06.02.2017
2 issues framed by the court
Whether courts below erred in relying on an unregistered sale deed to negative the plea for declaration of title when prior title was not disputed?
Whether the finding that the suit property was never in the possession of the original plaintiff is perverse?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Maruthiah (died) 1. M. Parvathi 2. M. Saravanan 3. M. Malathi
Pushpam
M. Duraiswamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
