This was a second appeal challenging an appellate court's reversal of a trial court decree in a suit for declaration and injunction. The High Court held that the appellant failed to prove his vendor's title or possession, dismissing the appeal for lack of merit and substantial questions of law.
Second appeal dismissed with 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.
S.A.No.324 of 1996
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.06.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
S.A.No.324 of 1996
Karuppuchamy ... Appellant Vs. 1.Panja Thevar 2.Shanmugasundaram Pillai 3.Kannan 4.Sundararajan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai made in A.S.No.46 of 1992, dated 06.09.1994 reversing the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Manamadurai made in O.S.No.457 of 1988, dated 09.04.1991.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Antony Arulraj For Respondents : Mr.K.Chengiz Khan
Page 1 of 16
J U D G M E N T
S.A.No.324 of 1996
The appellant is the plaintiff. He filed a suit in O.S.No.457 of 1988, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Manamadurai for declaration and injunction. The said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff, therefore, the respondents/defendants filed an appeal in A.S.No.46/1992, on the file of the Sub-Court, Sivagangai. The appellate Court after hearing the appeal and re-appreciating the evidence, dismissed the suit by setting aside the judgment and decreed passed by the trial Court.
Page 2 of 16
S.A.No.324 of 1996
Sivagangai in A.S.No.46/1992. The learned Sub-Judge, after hearing the arguments, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Now, challenging the said judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, the plaintiff has filed the present second appeal before this Court.
Page 3 of 16
S.A.No.324 of 1996
property and she sold the property to the appellant and handed over the possession and later the first defendant tried to interfere with the suit property on the ground that he got the sale deed from the second and third defendants, who have got a right and enjoyment of the property. Therefore,
the appellant was constrained to file the suit against the respondents/defendants for declaration and injunction.
Page 4 of 16
S.A.No.324 of 1996
not entitled to declaration and injunction and he is not in possession of the
property.
issues:-
“i)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit property based on the sale deed?
ii)Whether the plaintiff has perfected by adverse possession in the suit property?
iii)Whether the vendor of the plaintiff has got any right in the suit property?
iv)Whether the second and fourth defendants are entitled to the suit property?
v)Whether the suit is barred for non-joinder of necessary party?
vi)Whether the sale in favour of the first defendant is a valid and bind the plaintiff.
vii)Whether the second defendant is the one of the legal heirs of the owner of the property?
viii)Whether the suit properties allotted to the Vellaichasmy, S/o.Somasundram
ix)Whether the Vellaichamy is the one of the legal
Page 5 of 16
S.A.No.324 of 1996
heirs of the original owner Somasundaram Pillai?
x)Whether the Devikarani is the legal heir of the Muthusamy Pillai, who is son of the Somasundaram?
xi) What other relief the plaintiff is entitled to?”
Substantial Questions of law.
i)Whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property?
ii)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief of declaration and permanent injunction?
Page 6 of 16
S.A.No.324 of 1996
vendor of the plaintiff Devikarani is the legal heir of the Thangam. The said Devikarani was residing at Chennai and all the communications were sent to Chennai address. In the suit property, Karuvela trees were grown up and the Forest department has sent the communications to only Devikarani. Since the property allotted to Muthusamy Pillai hence, his legal heirs are only entitled to the suit property, the defendants 2 & 4 have no right over the property. Even prior to purchase of the suit property from the defendants 2 & 4, the first defendant entered into the sale agreement with one Devikarani, due to some reason he did not register sale deed. Therefore, the appellant purchased the property from Devikarani, since Devikarani is the absolute owner of the property. Even the first defendant admitted that Devikarani entered into the sale agreement with him and subsequently, he was not ready to register the same. Further, the defendants 2 to 4 have no right or title in the property. The Forest Officer has sent a communication only to Devikarani residence, which clearly shows that Devikarani was in possession of the property and based on that, the first defendant already entered into the agreement and subsequently, the first defendant did not
Page 7 of 16
S.A.No.324 of 1996
purchase the property and thereafter only, the appellant/plaintiff purchased the property from Devikarani. The appellant/plaintiff has got the right and title over the property. The defendants 2 to 4 have no right or title over the property nor they are enjoying the property. Therefore, the purchase said to have made in favour of the first defendant is not valid and it will not bind the appellant. Though the trial Court rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, granted the decree, whereas, the first appellate Court failed to re-appreciate the evidence erroneously held that the appellant has not proved his case, which warrant interference.
Page 8 of 16
S.A.No.324 of 1996
Unless he established the ownership, he cannot shift the burden to the defendants. The trial Court failed to appreciate the fundamental principles that the plaintiff has to prove his case, he cannot take the advantage of the loopholes left by the defendants and weakness of the defendants. The first appellate Court has rightly considered the entire pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. The learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the following
judgments:-
(I) Smriti Debbarma (dead) through legal representatives vs. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma and others reported in 2023 91) MWN (civil) 299
(ii) Union of India and others vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and others reported in 2014(2) Supreme Court Cases 269.
Page 9 of 16
S.A.No.324 of 1996
appellant has not made out any substantial questions of law. The records shows that the Registry has returned the memorandum of grounds of appeal and therefore, subsequently, the questions of law were framed. Further, this Court has not admitted the appeal and did not formulate any substantial questions of law. After returning the appeal, the appellant has raised certain substantial questions of law.
Page 10 of 16
S.A.No.324 of 1996
admitted that one Somasundaram Pillai is the original owner, he has got legal heirs by name Muthusamy Pillai and Vellaichamy Pillai. The vendor of the appellant viz., Devikarani is the branches of the legal heirs of the Muthusamy Pillai. Therefore, the plaintiff has to prove that the Muthusamy Pillai, who is the son of the Somasundaram Pillai, has got absolute right and title over the property and therefore, from Muthusamy Pillai, his legal heirs derived the title and lastly, the Devikarani has absolute title over the property. Therefore, it is the duty of the appellant as a plaintiff has to establish the right and title and also his vendor has got the right and marketable title over the property. Unless the plaintiff has established that he has got right and title over the property, he is not entitled to the suit for declaration. It is a settled proposition of law that the plaintiff has to prove his case on his own strength and he cannot take the advantage of the weakness of the defendants. Though the learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that even the first defendant has no case to prove that the vendor has got right over the property, more so, the first defendant had entered into the agreement even prior to the appellant purchased the
Page 11 of 16
S.A.No.324 of 1996
property from Devikarani. Therefore, the first defendant cannot questioned the title of the Devikarani and hence, he has to establish the title of the Devikarani and also the communication sent only Devikarani address, the address which was communicated is only the address of the Devikarani and therefore, the defendants admitted the title of the Devikarani and possession of the Devikarani.
Page 12 of 16
S.A.No.324 of 1996
Muthusamy Pillai or Vellaichamy Pillai, but unfortunately, Devikarani is the branch of the Muthusamy Pillai and the appellant, who purchased the property from the branches of the Muthusamy Pillai. It is the duty of the appellant/plaintiff to prove that the property belongs to Somasundaram Pillai and allotted to the Muthusamy Pillai and he has absolute title and the same carried up to the Devikarani without any interruption and the Devikarani has got absolute right, title and possession over the property same conveyed to the appellant, therefore, this Court finds that the appellant failed to prove his case and shifted the burden, especially, the fact of absolute title and possession over the property. Therefore, the judgment of the trial Court is perverse. The appellant as a plaintiff has failed to prove his case for the relief of declaration and injunction, hence the first appellate Court interfered with the judgment of the trial Court and allowed the first appeal. As already stated that there is no substantial questions of law involved in this case. The appellant as a plaintiff has to prove his case on his own strength. Since the defendants have not equally established their right and title, therefore, the plaintiff not automatically entitled to decree
Page 13 of 16
S.A.No.324 of 1996
against the defendants. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, this Court does not find any merit in the second appeal since there is no substantial questions of law emerged to answer in this second appeal. The first appeal is based on the factual aspects and also only on re-appreciation of evidence and though the trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence, the first appellate Court has rightly re-appreciated the evidence and allowed the appeal, hence, there is no merit in the second appeal.
NCC : Yes/No Index : Yes/No 26.06.2023 Internet: Yes/No am/cs
To
1.The Sub-Judge, Sivagangai.
Page 14 of 16
S.A.No.324 of 1996
Page 15 of 16
S.A.No.324 of 1996
P.VELMURUGAN, J.
am/cs
S.A.No.324 of 1996
26.06.2023
Page 16 of 16
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant/plaintiff has established the right, title, and marketable title in the suit property through his vendor?
Whether the plaintiff can claim relief of declaration and injunction without establishing the vendor's absolute title and possession?
Whether the second appeal raises substantial questions of law warranting interference at the second appellate stage?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smriti Debbarma (dead) through legal representatives vs. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma and othersReferred¶70
Smriti Debbarma (dead) through legal representatives vs. Prabha Ranjan Debbarma and others reported in 2023 91) MWN (civil) 299
Union of India and others vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and othersReferred¶70
Union of India and others vs. Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited and others reported in 2014(2) Supreme Court Cases 269
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Karuppuchamy
Panja Thevar
Shanmugasundaram Pillai
Kannan
Sundararajan
P. Velmurugan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
