This second appeal challenged a decree confirming the plaintiff's title to suit property. The appellant argued non-production of the original sale deed and misconstrued Evidence Act provisions. The court upheld presumptions under the Registration Act and dismissed the appeal.
The second appeal is dismissed; there will be 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.
S.A.(MD) No.126 of 2015
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 08.01.2020 CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN S.A.(MD) No.126 of 2015 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2015
1.M.Sivashanmugam 2.M.Karumban 3.M.Sivanu @ Perumal
4.K.Subramanian
... Appellants /Appellants/defendants
vs.
Kiruthiga ... Respondent / Respondent/Plaintiff
PRAYER : This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.146 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli, dated 24.02.2014 confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.299 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, dated 13.08.2012.
For Appellants : Mr.A.Mohamed Haneef for M.P.Senthil For Respondent : Mr.H.Arumugam
J U D G M E N T
The defendants in O.S.No.299 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, having suffered a decree for declaration and permanent injunction upon its affirmation by the lower appellate Court in A.S.No.146 of 2012, have come up with this second appeal.
1/5
S.A.(MD) No.126 of 2015
had three sons, by name, Perumal, Thadiyakkaran and Karuppaiah. Through the second wife, Rajammal, Sivanu had one son by name, Subbiah. The heirs of Sivanu had entered into a registered partition deed on 23.05.1980, under which the property purchased by Sivanu from Madan measuring about 3.5 cents was allotted to Karuppaiah, the father of the plaintiff. Thereafter, under sale deed dated 17.07.1997, Karuppaiah sold the said 3.5 cents to the plaintiff. Though the said sale deed recites the total extent conveyed as 14 cents, subsequently, the same was rectified restricting it to 3.5 cents. Two rectification documents were executed by Karuppaiah, namely father of the plaintiff under Exs.A8 and A11, dated 07.07.2011 and 09.06.2009, respectively. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, she is entitled to the suit property measuring about 3.5 cents, which land was allotted to Madan in the partition that took place and sold by him to Sivanu under sale deed dated 14.11.1960. Contending that the defendants, who are the heirs of Madan attempted to deny her title and interfere with her possession, the plaintiff had come up with the above suit
2/5
S.A.(MD) No.126 of 2015
Madan for and on behalf of his minor sons also, who are defendants 2 and 3. The said minor children having attained majority long back, have not taken any steps to have the sale deed set aside the sale deed dated 14.11.1960. Though the original sale deed was not produced before the Courts below, it was found that Exs.X1 and X2 proved execution of sale deed dated 14.11.1960 beyond doubt. Hence, the Courts below concluded that after the sale deed dated 14.11.1960, the defendants had no right over the property in order to enable them to execute the power of attorney in favour of the fourth defendant in the year 2009. Therefore, the sale deed executed by the fourth defendant in favour of the first defendant dated 09.02.2010 was held to be invalid and incapable, giving any right to the first defendant. On the aforesaid finding, the Courts below decreed the suit. Aggrieved the defendants have come up with this second appeal.
“1)Whether the judgment and decree of the Courts below is vitiated in granting a decree even without adverting that the respondent as plaintiff did not even discharge the initial onus of proof on the basis of positive and acceptable evidence?
2)Whether the Courts below are right in deciding the issue of title merely on the basis of Ex.A3, which is only a registration copy in the absence of any explanation for non-production of the original, especially the veracity of the said document has been specifically disputed?
3) Whether the judgment and decree of the Courts below could be sustained in law which has been rendered on total misconception of facts and law, especially misconstruing the provision under Sections 64, 65 and 90 of the Indian Evidence Act?”
3/5
S.A.(MD) No.126 of 2015
summoned and marked as Ex.X1 and attendance Register has also been summoned and marked as Ex.X2 to show that Madan had appeared before the Registering Officer had admitted, execution of the sale deed.
4/5
S.A.(MD) No.126 of 2015
law is also answered against the appellants. In view of the findings and the answers to the first and second questions of law, the third question of law does not really arise. Hence, I do not see any merit in the second appeal warranting any interference in the judgment and decree of the Courts below. Accordingly, this second appeal fails and dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Assistant Registrar (CS-III)
// True Copy //
/ /2020 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
ta To
1.The Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli.
2.The Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli,
copy to
The Section Officer,-2 copies Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1 CC to Mr.M.P.SENTHIL, Advocate ( SR-1021[F] dated 09/01/2020 )
+1 CC to Mr.H.ARUMUGAM, Advocate ( SR-1094[F] dated 09/01/2020 )
S.A.(MD)No.126 of 2015 08.01.2020
KM/(17.02.2020) 5P 7C
5/5
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the judgment is vitiated in granting a decree without the plaintiff discharging the initial onus of proof with positive evidence?
Whether the courts are right in deciding the title issue based on a registered copy in the absence of the original?
Whether the judgment should be sustained despite misconstruing Sections 64, 65 and 90 of the Indian Evidence Act?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M.Sivashanmugam
M.Karumban
M.Sivanu @ Perumal
K.Subramanian
Kiruthiga
R.Subramanian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
