High Court allowed second appeal remitting case to First Appellate Court for fresh consideration after permitting late-filed documentary evidence on title dispute regarding adverse possession.
Second appeal allowed; lower judgments and decrees set aside; matter remitted to First Appellate Court to admit additional documents and dispose of appeal.
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
DATED: 25.11.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE P.RAJAMANICKAM
S.A.No.887 of 2001
and
CMP.Nos.24207, 7729, 16927 and 23414 of 2019
1.Jeevarathinam
2. Selvaganapathy
... Appellants/Appellants/Plaintiffs
Vs.
1. Kamala (deceased) ..1 st Respondent/Respondent/Defendant
2. A.Jothi
3. A.Shankar
... Respondents 2 & 3/LRs of 1 st Respondent
(RR2 and 3 brought on
record as LRs of the deceased
sole respondent vide order of
court dated 03.08.2018 made
in CMP.No.12437 to 12439/2018
in SA.No.887 of 2001)
PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 10.02.2000 in A.S.No.84 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore dismissing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 14.02.1998 in O.S.No.824 of 1995 on the file of the Principal District Munsif's Court, Cuddalore.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Sunil Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.V.Rajendran for R2 and R3
JUDGMENT
This second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs against the judgment and decree passed by the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore in A.S.No.84 of 1998 dated 10.02.2000 confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore in O.S.No.824 of 1995 dated 14.02.1998.
the relief of declaration of their title and recovery of vacant possession after removing super structure. The learned Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore by the judgment dated 14.02.1998 had dismissed the said suit with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs had filed an appeal in A.S.No.84 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore. During pendency of the said appeal, the plaintiffs had filed an application in I.A.No.146 of 1999 under Order 41 and Rule 27 of CPC seeking leave of the court for adducing additional documentary evidence. The learned Principal District Judge by the judgment dated 10.02.2000 had dismissed the said I.A.No.146 of 1999 and also the said appeal with costs and thereby confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Feeling further aggrieved, the plaintiffs have filed the present second appeal.
The first plaintiff is the mother of the second plaintiff. The suit property belonged to the first plaintiff. The defendant was inducted as a tenant ten years ago by oral lease. Already, one Sattanathan claimed right over the suit property. Hence, the first plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in O.S.No.818 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif, Cuddalore and the said suit was dismissed. As against the same, the first plaintiff had filed an appeal in A.S.No.55 of 1992 on the file of Sub Judge, Cuddalore. In that appeal, a compromise was entered. As per the terms of compromise, the said Sattanathan conceded the title of the second plaintiff herein with regard to the suit property and other properties held by other tenants. The second plaintiff's title to the property as successor in interest to the original lessor, Jeevarathnammal (first plaintiff) cannot be questioned by the defendant. The defendant is estoped from denying the title of the plaintiffs. The disputes between the first plaintiff and the said Sattanathan emboldened the defendant to deny the plaintiffs' title and she began defaulting in payment of monthly rent. Hence, the first plaintiff had issued a notice to the defendant through her counsel dated 30.04.1994 calling upon her to deliver vacant possession of the suit property. The defendant after receipt of the said notice had sent a reply notice through counsel with false averments. She disputed the title of the first plaintiff and hence the plaintiffs had constrained to file the suit to declare the second plaintiff's title to the suit property and for consequential relief of recovery of possession after removal of super structure and also for past damages of Rs.210/- and future damages.
The suit is not maintainable since the suit property had been possessed by the defendant and her predecessors in title for the past three generations without any interruption. The thatched house in the suit property is very old and the same was constructed by Rathnavel Mudaliar who is father-in-law of the defendant, which has been repaired and re-roofed from time to time by spending huge amount of Rs.50,000/- but, the plaintiffs never raised any objection. Hence the property is subject to the adverse possession also. The compromise entered between Sattanathan and the plaintiffs could not bind upon the defendant. The defendant denied the alleged lease. The plaintiffs are not having any title over the suit property and hence there is no question to pay any rent or default in paying the rent. After receipt of the notice, the respondent had sent a reply notice with correct particulars. There is no cause of action and therefore she prayed to dismiss the suit.
“i) Whether the courts below did not err in dismissing the plaintiffs suit, especially when the plaintiff had adduced all the necessary indicia of proof regarding title namely civil court decree and Ex.A.2 the house tax receipts?
ii) Whether the question regarding title ought not have been answered affirmatively in favour of the plaintiff when the defendant failed to establish the plea of adverse possession, which was consistent only with the case of conceding title of the plaintiffs but pleading a lost grant?”
application. As already pointed out that the dispute is with regard to the title, the said document is also an important document to decide the issue between the parties and hence this court is of the view, the order passed by the First Appellate Court in I.A.No.146 of 1999 dismissing the said application is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order passed by the First Appellate Court in I.A.No.146 of 1999 is set aside.
s/dAssistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar Vv To
Copy to The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras. +1 CC to Mr.R.Sunil Kumar, Advocate sr 98216. +1 CC to Mr.V.Rajendran, Advocate sr 98637.
S.A.No887 of 2001 and CMP.Nos.24207, 7729, 16927 and 23414 of 2019
SR(CO)
SP(16/12/2020)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the courts below erred in dismissing the plaintiffs suit regarding title?
Whether the question of title ought to be answered in the plaintiff's favour given the defendant's failure to prove adverse possession?
Whether the First Appellate Court order dismissing the application for additional documentary evidence should be set aside to allow remittal?
3 provisions across 1 enactments
Jeevarathinam
Selvaganapathy
Kamala
A. Jothi
A. Shankar
P. Rajamanickam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
