The High Court of Madras allowed a second appeal in a property declaration suit. The court held that the trial court erred in decreeing the suit without the plaintiff establishing exclusive title, noting revenue records showed joint ownership.
The Second Appeal was allowed, overruling the decree of the courts below regarding exclusive title.
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 : 21.12.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
S.A.No.552 of 2008
1.Devamirtham
2.R.Rajendran ...Appellants Vs. G.Rajendran ...Respondent
Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.01.2007 made in A.S.No.91 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Additional Subordinate Judge of Virudhachalam, confirming the Judgement and Decree dated 19.04.2006 made in O.S.No.103 of 2001 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif – Cum – Judicial Magistrate, Virudhachalam.
1/12
: For Appellants Mr.R.Agilesh : For Respondent Mr.J.Rajamohan
JUDGMENT
The defendants are the appellants before this Court challenging the concurrent Judgement and Decree passed in A.S.No.91 of 2006 on
the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Virudhachalam confirming the Judgement and Decree in O.S.No.103 of 2001 of the District Munsif – cum – Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli. The parties are referred to in the same rank as before the Trial Court. The facts in brief are as follows.
in respect of the property measuring an extent of 30 cents out of 77 cents in S.No.518/1 of Ammeri Village, Kammapuram, Chidambaram
bounded on the north and east by the property of the 1st defendant, west
2/12
by pathway and south by Palanivelu's and plaintiff's land.
him by one Palanivel son of Arumugam Chettiar for himself and as a guardian of his minor son under a sale deed dated 04.08.1998. The plaintiff would submit that he was put in possession of the property on the date of the sale. The defendants who had no right, title or interest to the suit property were attempting to trespass into the same by use of force. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants had gathered unruly elements and were taking steps to trespass into the property. Therefore, the suit came to be filed.
the contents of the plaint and it is their case that on 31.07.1998 the 1st defendant had purchased the property from one Veerapa Chettiyar and
his son Murugan under a sale agreement for a sum of Rs.7,500/-. An advance of Rs.500/- was paid and the balance was to be paid on 30.10.1998. The defendants would submit that the 1st defendant had
3/12
got the sale deed executed in his favour on 01.09.1998 and from the date of the purchase, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
1st defendant had purchased the 30 cents, the suit came to be filed. The 2nd defendant is having the property on the east of the property purchased by the 1st defendant and it was for this reason that the 1st defendant had purchased the property. The defendants would further submit that the suit property was not purchased by the plaintiff and it was only the 1st defendant who had purchased the suit property.
4/12
Neyveli had framed the following issues:
“i. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and
enjoyment of the suit property?
ii. Whether the 1st defendant is the owner of the suit property pursuant to the agreement of sale and subsequent sale deed dated 1.8.98?
iii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to declaration, prayed for?
iv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction prayed for?
iv. Whether the suit Property is properly described?
v. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to?
5/12
Palanivelu as P.W.2 and one Venkatesan as P.W.3. Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.8 and Ex.X.1 and Ex.X.2 were marked on the side of the plaintiff. The 2nd defendant had examined himself as D.W.1 and his vendor Murugan
as D.W.2. The defendants had marked Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 on their side.
had filed A.S.No.91 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Virudhachalam. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge also confirmed the Judgement of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.
6/12
“1. Is the plaintiff entitled to succeed merely on the weakness of defendant's case even if any and is he not bounded to succeed only on the basis of his case?
2. Is the plaintiff entitled to succeed in a suit based on title even without plaintiff establishing plaintiff's predecessor's title?
elaborated on the ownership of the property although in the plaint the same has not been mentioned. The plaintiff would submit that the property belonged to one Arumuga Chettiar and Ponnambala Chettiar. Ponnambala Chettiar had three sons, Selvaraj, Venkatesan and Murugan. Selvaraj had died. Arumugam had four sons, Muthusamy,
7/12
Nadanasababathy, Palanivel and Velayutham.
8/12
patta in respect of the suit property, which clearly describes the four persons as joint patta holders, namely, Veerapa chettiyar, Muthusamy, Selvaraj and Arumuga Chettiar. This patta has been issued on 04.06.2001. This would clearly show that the extent of 77 cents has not been partitioned and that the four persons are joint patta holders of the same. That being the case, it is not known as to how the plaintiff can claim an exclusive right to an extent of 30 cents.
show that there are other owners of the property. The plaintiff has not
9/12
taken any steps to seek a partition of the property. P.W.2 who has been examined on the side of the plaintiff who is the vendor of the plaintiff would state that he had three siblings. P.W.2 would depose that there was an oral partition. However, the plaint does not speak about any such partition and the same was introduced only during the evidence.
property. Therefore, the Substantial Questions of Law are answered 10/12
against the plaintiff.
shall be no order as to costs.
21.12.2022
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No kan
To
1.The Additional Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam.
2.The District Munsif – Cum – Judicial Magistrate, Virudhachalam.
11/12
P.T. ASHA, J,
kan
S.A.No.552 of 2008
21.12.2022
12/12
2 issues framed by the court
Is the plaintiff entitled to succeed merely on the weakness of the defendant's case even if any?
Is the plaintiff entitled to succeed in a suit based on title even without establishing his predecessor's title?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
1.Devamirtham
2.R.Rajendran
G.Rajendran
P.T. ASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
