The High Court dismissed a second appeal regarding a title dispute. Upholding lower courts, it held the plaintiff failed to prove the validity of the settlement deed, lack of vendor possession, and that properties were self-acquired rather than ancestral. The appeal fails.
Second appeal dismissed with costs; connected miscellaneous petition 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 : 03.09.2018
PRONOUNCED ON : 04.10.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
S. A.No.1 of 2015
Srinivasamurthy ...Appellant/Appellant/plaintiff
Vs. 1. Marimuthu 2. Mangalakshmi ...Respondants/Respondents/ Defendants 2 & 3 Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 25.03.2014 passed in A.S.No.16 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Villupuram, confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2010 passed in O.S. No.10 of 2008 before the Additional District Munsif Court, Villupuram.
For Appellants : Ms.R.Meenal For Respondent : Mr.N.Suresh JUDGMENT
In this second appeal, challenge is made to the judgment and decree dated 25.03.2014 passed in A.S.No.16 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Villupuram, confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2010 passed in O.S. No.10 of 2008 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Villupuram.
other properties and the same had been duly accepted and acted upon and came into effect. The male issues of the settlee would be entitled to the properties settled absolutely in the event of no male issues born to Ranganatha Kounder through his wife Mangalakshmi within a period of ten years from the date of execution of the settlement deed. No male issue was born to Ranganatha Kounder within the abovesaid period of 10 years and accordingly the male issues of the settlee are entitled to the settled properties. A mistake has crept in with regard to the survey number in respect of the first item of the suit properties in the settlement deed and the same has been stated as 357/3 instead of 358/1, but the boundaries are given correctly. The settllee was in the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and other properties by paying kists, etc., and she along with her husband and sons executed a registered sale deed dated 05.02.2007 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of items 1 and 2 of the suit properties and accordingly, the plaintiff has been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and thereby by way of continuous and uninterrupted possesion, prescribed title to the suit properties by way of adverse possession also and Ranganatha Kounder, Son of Erusappa Kounder, since deceased, seem to have created the settlement deed dated 05.04.2007 in favour of the 2nd defendant and the said document is invalid and Ranganatha Kounder had no right to execute the settlement deed in respect of the suit properties, it is only the plaintiff, who has been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, however, the defendants attempted to interfere with his possession and enjoyment and accordingly left with no other alternative, according to the plaintiff, he has been necessiated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs. 5. The case of the defendants, in brief, is that the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The suit properties had been acquired by Erusappa Kounder from and out of the income from the ancestral properties and the same has been treated only as the family properties and accordingly, Erusappa Kounder is not entitled to settle the suit properties in favour of his daughter Karuppayee ammal and the defendants deny the due execution, valid attestation and the validity of the settlement deed dated 19.12.1974 said to have been executed by Erusappa Kounder in favour of Karuppayee ammal and the abovesaid settlement deed will not confer any title on the settllee and the same is not binding on the defendants. The settlement deed abovestated, has not been accepted and acted upon and never came into effect and it is only the defendants, who are in the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties for several decades to the knowledge of Karuppayee ammal and the plaintiff and the patta for the suit properties stand in the name of the defendants and the
allegations that the patta had been changed in the name of the plaintiff is false and the defendants had taken steps to cancel the patta said to have been issued in favour of the plaintiff and after due enquiry, the patta granted in favour of the plaintiff had been cancelled and the same had been changed in the name of the defendants and it false to state that the first item of the suit properties has not been correctly mentioned in the settlement deed and on the otherhand the first item had never been the subject matter of the settlement deed as not only the survey number differs, even the extent also differs and the boundaries also do not tally and therefore the plaintiff is not entitled to claim title to the first item of the suit properties and it is only the defendants who are in the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and the first defendant had executed the settlement deed on 05.04.2007 in favour of the second defendant, his son, and the same is true and valid and the plaintiff is not entitled to challenge the same and not entitled to obtain the relief of permanent injunction, hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
disprove the case of the plaintiff for title?"
of the above, in particular, when there is no material to hold that the properties acquired by Erusappa Kounder by way of Ex.A1 had been secured with the aid of ancestral nucleus and furthermore as determined by the trial court, the parties to Ex.B6 partition deed had chosen to divide the properties derived from the various sources and accordingly, it is seen that the determination of the first appellate court that the suit properties are the ancestral properties of Erusappa Kounder and his son, the first defendant Ranganatha Kounder,as such, cannot be sustained and thereby proceeding to hold that the settlement deed dated 19.12.1974 is invalid in respect of the share to which the first defenant is entitled thereto, cannot be countenanced and accordingly, the substantial questions of law No.1 and 2 formulated in the second appeal are suitably answered.
settlement deed has not been marked and no reason has been offered for the same. The plaintiff has not even chosen to examine his vendor Karupayee ammal with reference to the same or atleast to prove the validity of Ex.A2 settlement deed. Furthermore, the plaintiff has also not endeavoured to examine anyone of the attestors of Ex.A2 settlement deed. Accordingly, it is found that when the plaintiff has not chosen to examine any person associated with the settlement deed Ex.A2, in the light of the decisions relied upon by the trial court, it is found that the plaintiff, being incumbent to establish the validity of the settlement deed as per law particularly in the light of the serious challenge thrown to the same by the defendants and the plaintiff miserably failed to establish the same by examining the attestors or any other persons associated with the said settlement deed, the courts below are justified in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to establish his vendors' title to the suit properties based on Ex.A2 settlement deed. Furthermore, the plaintiff has also not placed any acceptable material to show that Ex.A2 settlement deed had been accepted and acted upon and since then it is only his vendor Karupayee ammal, who had been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. As rightly determined by the courts below to establish the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by his vendors, particularly, karupayee ammal, the plaintiff has not chosen to examine her and also not endeavoured to place any record evidencing the possession and enjoyment of his vendors in respect of the suit properties. Thus, it is seen that as rightly determined by the courts below, when the plaintiff has failed to establish his vendors' valid title to the suit properties based on Ex.A2, as above discussed, the plaintiff cannot be granted the relief of declaration of title sought for in respect of the suit properties based on the sale deeds marked as Ex.A3 and A4.
the plaintiff's vendor or the plaintiff, as the case may me, to rectify the survey number in the settlement deed Ex.A1, in such view of the matter, no interference is called for in the determination of the courts below that the settlement deed Ex.A2 does not pertain to the first item of the suit properties and the plaintiff thus has also failed to establish that the first items of the suit properties is covered un Ex.A2 settlement deed.
been challenged by the defendants tooth and nail and the plaintiff having failed to establish his vendor's title to the suit properties as above discussed, also failed to establish his claim of possession and enjoyment of the suit properties as well as his vendors / predecessors in title, possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and thereby when it is found that the plaintiff's case has been rightly rejected by the courts below, no interference is called for with reference to the same. In the light of the above discussions, the courts below are justified in holding that the plaintiff has failed to establish his vendors' title to the suit properties and also failed to establish that all the suit properties had been covered under the settlement deed Ex.A2 and accordingly, the courts below are justified in holding that the plaintiff has failed to establish his claim of title, possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The third substantial question of law is accordingly answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
S. A.No.1 of 2015 GJ(CO) GN(16/11/2018)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the finding that suit properties are ancestral rather than self-acquired is sustainable given they were allotted via partition?
Whether the failure to examine the attester of the settlement deed disproves the plaintiff's title claim?
Whether the plaintiff established vendor title and possession for the suit properties?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
B.Nalina and others v. Arumugam and othersReferred¶25
2011-3-L.W. 317 (B.Nalina and other v. Arumugam and others)
M.Palaniappan & another vs. NachimuthuReferred¶25
2017-2.L.W.343 (M.Palaniappan & another vs. Nachimuthu)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Srinivasamurthy
Marimuthu
Mangalakshmi
T.RAVINDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
