Second appeal by a property purchaser against partition decree. Bench held plaintiff proved 1/4th share via vendor admissions despite lack of title documents. Dismissed appeal confirming lower courts' decree.
Second appeal dismissed confirming judgments and decrees of courts below; twenty-ninth car metaphor: 3107 0 4 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
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.No.1091 of 1999
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 22.12.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
S.A.No.1091 of 1999
Nattarjee ... Appellant/Appellant/
7th Defendant
Vs
1.Chelliah (Died)
[R1 - died, memo in USR No.209/2014 dated 08.01.2014 recorded vide order dated 21.01.2014 in S.A.No.1091 of 1999]
2.Valliammal
3.Shanmugasundaram
4.Sivanaintha Perumal
6.Seethai alias Maria Muthammal
7.Sudalaimuthu
... Respondents/Respondents/ Plaintiff & Defendants 1 to 6
[Respondents 2 to 7 set exparte before the Courts below and hence issuance of notice to them is dispensed with vide order dated 14.12.2022 made in S.A.No.1091 of 1999]
8.Karuppasamy
... 8th Respondent
[8th respondent was brought on record as LR of the deceased R1 vide order dated 22.12.2022 made in C.M.P.(MD) Nos. 12648, 12649 & 12651 of 2022 in S.A.No.1091 of 1999]
___________Page 1 of 10
Prayer:- Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside
S.A.No.1091 of 1999
Prayer:- Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the judgment and decree dated 25.01.1999 made in A.S.No.198 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tuticorin confirming the judgment and decree dated 21.12.1995 made in O.S.No.197 of 1994 on the file of the Principal District Munsif's Court, Tuticorin.
For Appellant : Mr.M.P.Senthil R2 to R7 : Dispensed with For R8 : No appearance
J U D G M E N T
The 7th defendant is the appellant. The 1st respondent herein filed a
suit for partition of his 1/4th share and the same was decreed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the 7th defendant filed an appeal and the said appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, he is before this Court.
___________Page 2 of 10
S.A.No.1091 of 1999
herein purchased 80 cents in the suit property from the 6th respondent. The 7th respondent herein claims the share of the above said Karuppan. The plaintiff is the only son of his father viz., Karuppan @ Karuppasamy. Since there was some difficulty in enjoying the properties jointly, the 1st respondent/plaintiff issued a notice to the defendants in the suit seeking partition, but however, there was no reply. Thereafter, the suit was filed by the 1st respondent seeking 1/4th share.
___________Page 3 of 10
S.A.No.1091 of 1999
P.W.1 and one Bommian was examined as P.W.2. He marked 20 documents as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.20. On behalf of the appellant, he was examined as D.W.3. His vendors viz., the 3rd and 6th respondents were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2. One Kumarasamy Naicker was examined as D.W.4. On behalf of the appellant, five documents were marked as Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.5.
came to the conclusion that the 1st respondent proved his entitlement to claim 1/4th share in the suit property and also found that the appellant failed to prove the plea of adverse possession raised by him and consequently, decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed a first appeal in A.S.No.198 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tuticorin. The first appellate Court also concurred with the findings entered by the trial Court and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court.
___________Page 4 of 10
S.A.No.1091 of 1999
“Whether the findings of the Courts below are vitiated by its failure to consider the admissions of PW.1 regarding partition between the 4 sharers and the absence of any evidence regarding title and possession?”
___________Page 5 of 10
S.A.No.1091 of 1999
a lawyer's notice claiming 1/4th share in the suit property under Ex.A.6 and
___________Page 6 of 10
S.A.No.1091 of 1999
the said notice was received by the appellant as exhibited by Ex.A.7 postal acknowledgement card, but for the reasons best known to him, he had not chosen to reply to the pre-suit notice. In these circumstances, based on the admission of the appellant's own witnesses viz., D.W.1 and D.W.2 and also the other evidences available on record, as discussed earlier, both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the 1st respondent/plaintiff proved his entitlement for 1/4th share in the suit property. Though the appellant/7th defendant in his written statement claimed adverse possession, he failed to prove the same by leading cogent evidence. In these circumstances, the substantial question of law is answered against the appellant and the second appeal deserves to be dismissed.
___________Page 7 of 10
S.A.No.1091 of 1999
the final decree proceedings for working out equity in respect of the property purchased by him. If any such request is made by the appellant for working out equity, the same shall be considered by the Court below in accordance with law without being influenced by anything discussed in this judgment.
22.12.2022 NCC: Yes (2/2) Internet:Yes Index:Yes/No abr
___________Page 8 of 10
S.A.No.1091 of 1999
To
Page 9 of 10
S.A.No.1091 of 1999
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
abr
S.A.No.1091 of 1999
22.12.2022 (2/2)
___________Page 10 of 10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the findings of courts below are vitiated by failure to consider admissions regarding partition and absence of title evidence?
Whether the appellant successfully proved adverse possession over the suit property?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Nattarjee
Chelliah
Valliammal
Shanmugasundaram
Sivanaintha Perumal
Valli Deivanai
S.Sounthar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
