High Court dismissed the second appeal against a lower court decree confirming title in favor of the plaintiff in a partition suit. The Court upheld the plaintiff's title and possession, rejecting rival claims of adverse possession and invalidating a sale certificate obtained without establishing the third-party's legal entitlement to the property.
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 : 13.03.2019
PRONOUNCED ON : 04.04.2019
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
S.A.No.1307 of 2005
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2005 in A.S.No.2 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Panruti, confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2004 in O.S.No.56 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Panruti.
For Appellants : Mr.A.Nilapher
for Mrs.R.Meenal
For Respondent : Mr.R.Sunil Kumar
Challenge in the second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2005 passed in A.S.No.2 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Panruti, confirming the judgment and decree dated 16.12.2004 passed in O.S.No.56 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Panruti.
“1. Whether in law the Courts below are correct in granting a decree for declaration when the final decree for declaration when the final decree proceedings in the prior suit O.S.No.376/77 were set at naught by the delivery of the property to the appellants pursuant to the Court sale in O.S.No.1252/86?
uncle Manika Padayachi and though the decree had been passed in favour of the plaintiff in O.S.No.376 of 1977 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Cuddalore, as claimed in the plaint, the plaintiff had not placed any material evidencing that he had taken the delivery of the property said to have allotted to him in the abovesaid suit proceedings, on the other hand, according to the defendants, it is only Manika Padayachi who had been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property continuously and after his demise, his son Palani had been enjoying the suit property by retaining the same in his possession and on account of the long and continuous possession of the suit property by Manika Padayachi and his son, they had also prescribed title to the same by adverse possession. The plaintiff has not enjoyed the suit property as claimed in the plaint by paying kists, etc., and the patta in respect of the suit property has been standing only in the name of Manika Padayachi and it is he who had been in the enjoyment of the same by paying the kists, etc., The second defendant had levied a money suit against Palani, son of Manika Padayachi in O.S.No.1252 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Panruti. Pursuant to the decree obtained in the said suit, the suit property was brought for sale by way of auction and in the said auction, the second defendant’s wife namely the first defendant was the highest bidder in the auction and accordingly, the sale certificate had been issued in favour of the first defendant and following the same, the first defendant had also taken delivery of the suit property through the Court process on 29.01.1993 and since then, it is only the first defendant who has been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property as the absolute owner thereof and the first defendant had purchased the suit property in the Court auction in bonafide manner and when the plaintiff had not endeavoured to take the possession of the suit property and also failed to take the delivery of the suit property pursuant to the decree passed in O.S.No.376 of 1977 and enjoy the same and on the other hand, when the first defendant had purchased the suit property in the Court auction sale and enjoying the same after taking the delivery of the property, in such view of the matter, it is put forth that the plaintiff is not entitled to obtain the reliefs as claimed in the plaint and the plaintiff's suit is liable to be dismissed.
accordingly, granted the reliefs in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for. Impugning the same, the second appeal has been filed.
certain admission of the plaintiff made during the course of his evidence, at the first instance, that the suit property has been in the possession and enjoyment of Manika Padayachi. However, subsequently, the plaintiff had disputed the case of the defendants that the suit property had been entrusted to Manika Padayachi on the basis of the oral exchange arrangement between them and further disputed the case of defendants that following the same, it is only Manika Padayachi who had been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Therefore, as rightly determined by the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court, the evidence of a party should be viewed cumulatively and not in isolation. On that basis, when the evidence of the plaintiff is read in toto and jointly, it is found that he has in toto disputed the case of the defendants that Manika Padayachi and his son Palani had been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property following the oral exchange arrangement. In such view of the matter, the so-called admission on the part of the plaintiff would not in any manner deprive the plaintiff from claiming title to the suit property as determined in his favour in the partition suit in O.S.No.376 of 1977. Though the defendants would come forward that the suit property had been entrusted to Manika Padayachi on the basis of the oral exchange arrangement between the parties concerned, however, the defendants have not come out with the clear case as to on what understanding or terms, the parties had entered into an oral exchange and when the same took place and with reference to the abovesaid case of the plaintiff, there is no acceptable and reliable materials placed to substantiate the same. The Courts below are therefore found to be fully justified in rejecting the abovesaid plea projected by the defendants. Furthermore, when the defendants have come forward with the plea of oral exchange arrangement, particularly when the same cannot be upheld in the eyes of law, in such view of the matter, the claim of the defendants that Manika Padayachi had been enjoying the suit property by way of an oral exchange arrangement and also keeping the same in his continuous possession, as such, cannot be accepted sans any material pointing to the same. There is no material placed on the part of the defendants that Manika Padayachi had been enjoying the suit property as the absolute owner thereof by placing acceptable and reliable material. Though the defendants would claim that Manika Paddayachi and his son had been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by obtaining patta, paying kists, etc., and with reference to substantiate their abovesaid case, absolutely there is no documentary evidence pointing to the issuance of patta, payment of kists, etc., either by Manika Padayachi or Palani. Though the defendants would claim that on account of the continuous and long possession and enjoyment of the suit property by Manika Padayachi and his son to the knowledge of the plaintiff by asserting their title openly beyond the statutory
period, however with reference to the abovesaid claim of the defendants, there is no reliable material furnished on their part other than Exs.B1 to B4. Particularly, when there is no material at all placed on the part of the defendants that the suit property had been in the possession and enjoyment of Manika Padayachi or his son in any manner, in such view of the matter, the plea of adverse title put forth by the defendants on the part of Manika Padayachi and his son Palani had been rightly disbelieved by the Courts below.
the lawful owner and enjoying the same, in such view of the matter, when behind the back the plaintiff, the second defendant having obtained the decree against Palani and had also brought the suit property for sale without showing any entitlement to the same as belonging to Palani and without the knowledge of the plaintiff, in such view of the matter, as rightly determined by the Courts below, merely because the sale certificate had been issued in favour of the first defendant by the Court, it cannot be construed or held that the first defendant had acquired a valid title to the suit property on the strength of the same. On the mere issuance of the sale certificate, it could not construed that the Court has conveyed a valid title to the holder of the same as such, unless the decree holder establishes that he had brought the property belonging to the judgment debtor for sale and when it is found that the decree holder namely the second defendant has brought the suit property for sale without showing the legal entitlement of Palani to the same or the legal entitlement of Manika Padayachi to the same and on the other hand, when the suit property is found to be lawfully belonging to the plaintiff, in such view of the matter, on the strength of the sale certificate and the delivery receipt projected by the defendants, it cannot be held that the first defendant had acquired a valid title to the suit property as such.
the Court auction sale held in connection with the abovesaid proceedings, in such view of the matter, the Courts below are found to be fully justified in determining that the sale certificate obtained by the first defendant in respect of the suit property is not valid in law.
In conclusion, the second appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
nsd
To
1. The Subordinate Judge,
Panruti.
2. The District Munsif Judge,
Panruti.
Copy to
The Section Officer, V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras.
+1 cc to Mr.R.Subramanian, Advocate, S.R.No.33115
S.A.No.1307 of 2006 SKV(CO) SSM(17/06/2019)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether Courts were correct in granting a decree for declaration when prior suit proceedings were set at naught by a court sale and delivery of property to appellants?
Whether the Courts were wrong in failing to see that judicial acts were done properly and that property was delivered to appellants under a delivery receipt?
Whether the Courts were right in overlooking admissions regarding enjoyment of property and granting a decree in favor of the plaintiff?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Andal Ammal & Ors
Selvarangam
T. Ravindran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
