Second Appeal by appellant against dismissal of suit for declaration, injunction, and possession. Court dismissed appeal as appellant failed to prove title, identify property, or establish encroachment, with suit for declaration also barred by limitation.
Second appeal dismissed. No 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 10.06.2019
PRONOUNCED ON : 12.06.2019
CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN S.A.No.121 of 2016
Varadharajan ...Appellant
Vs.
1. Manickam
2. Palanisamy
3. Chinnammal
4. Mohan
5. Kumar
6. Arumugam
7. Dhanasekaran ...Respondents
Prayer:
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 13.04.2015 made in A.S.No. 114 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem, in confirming the Judgment and decree dated 01.03.2007 made in O.S.No.664 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Prabakaran
For Respondent : R1 to R7 - No appearance.
Set exparte vide order dated 10.06.2019
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this Second Appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 13.04.2015 passed in A.S.No. 114 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Salem, confirming the Judgment and decree dated 01.03.2007 passed in O.S.No.664 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.
appearance and they being called and remaining absent, they had been set exparte.
which had been dealt with in the title deeds marked as Exs.A3 to A5. In such view of the matter, when the plaintiff has failed to establish that his predecessors in interest had a valid title to the suit property and competent to convey the same to him by way of Ex.A1 sale deed and when the courts below have rightly found by analysing the materials placed on record that the properties covered under Exs.A3 to A5 do not have any similarity with the property comprised under Ex.A1 sale deed, in such view of the matter, the courts below are found to be wholly justified in not accepting the plaintiff's case that he has acquired a valid title to the suit property based on Ex.A1 sale deed.
also not sure about the identity of the suit property and accordingly not endeavoured to describe the suit property with the clear boundaries as well as the proper extent and accordingly the courts below are found to be correct in not accepting the plaintiff's case.
courts below having been arrived at by the courts below based on the proper appreciation of the materials placed on record and the same centering on the factual matrix, in such view of the matter, I do not find any substantial question of law involved in this second appeal.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(co)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
bga
1. I Additional Subordinate Judge, Salem
2.II Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.
Copy to:
The Section Officer,
V.R.Section, High Court of Madras.
+1cc to Mr.C.Prabakaran , Advocate SR.No. 47410
S.A.No.121 of 2016
sv
A.SK(03/09/2019)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit for declaration barred by limitation as it was sought via amendment after delay.
Whether the appellant could establish valid title to the suit property through the sale deed.
Whether the appellant failed to establish description and possession of the suit property.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Varadharajan
Manickam
T.Ravindran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
