Dismissed

Anbumani v. S.Ramesh

Madras HC9 Sept 2022SA/667/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal filed by the appellant (defendant in original suit) challenging the decree in his favour regarding possession and title of an encroached property. The High Court upheld the lower courts' finding that the property forms part of the plaintiff's title based on sale evidence and DW admission.

What did the court decide?

The substantial questions of law are answered in the affirmative; the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs; the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Anbumani Vs S.Ramesh — Partition | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

S.A.No.667 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 09.09.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

S.A.No.667 of 2013

and

M.P.No.1 of 2013

Anbumani

... Appellant

Vs.

S.Ramesh

... Respondent

Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908 against the decree and judgment dated 17.02.2012 passed in A.S. No.10 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Vellore, upholding the decree and judgment dated 02.12.2010 passed in O.S. No.225 of 2006, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Vellore.

¶15

For Appellant : Ms.R.T.Sundari For Respondent : Mr.S.Mukunth for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates

¶16

Page 1 of 9

¶17

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶18

S.A.No.667 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The appellant herein is the defendant in O.S. No.225 of 2006, on

¶21

the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Vellore, filed by the respondent herein / plaintiff for the relief of declaration, injunction and possession in respect of the suit property shown as 'EGHI' in Guruvarajapalayam, Natham S.F.No.145/2 a total extent of 128 feet which was encroached by the defendant.

¶22

2.The defendant contended that 'EGHI' portion not belongs to

¶23

the plaintiff nor he has title over the suit property and the said portion 'EGHIDJ' as shown in the plan is in fact a poromboke land bearing S.F.No.144/46 and the same is lying adjacent to his property and the Government constructed a bathroom to this defendant in the 'EGHJ' portion and the entire 'EGHIDJ' is a portion of the poromboke land and the same is in his favour thereby, denied the plaintiff's right over the property.

¶24

Page 2 of 9

¶25

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶26

S.A.No.667 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶27

3.Before the trial Court both oral and documentary evidences were adduced on both sides and on considering the evidence, the trial Judge concludes that 'EGHI' portion belongs to the plaintiff and the same is forming part of the land purchased by the plaintiff in S.F.No.145/2 and the same is proved by the plaintiff with the help of DW2/ Village Administrative Officer and map / Ex.B1. Apart from that the defendant not proved that the 'EGHI' portion is in poromboke land wherein the Government said to have constructed a bathroom to him. Thus the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff.

¶28

4.Aggrieved over the same, the defendant preferred an appeal in A.S. No.10 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Vellore, wherein the learned Appellate Judge framed separate issues and independently analysed the evidence on record and finally held that the suit property 'EGHI' belongs to the plaintiff and it is not a poromboke land as claimed by the defendant. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed by confirming the trial Court findings.

¶29

Page 3 of 9

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

S.A.No.667 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶32

5.Challenging, the concurrent findings of the Courts below the

¶33

defendant preferred this appeal contending that the disputed property is a poromboke land in S.No.144/46 lying adjacent to the defendant's house in S.No.144/44 and the plaintiff failed to prove the location and identification of the property with the help of the Commissioner's Report. Inspite of that, the Courts below simply relying on the evidence of DW2 and Ex.A1/sale deed & Ex.A3/rectification deed, erroneously granted relief in favour of the plaintiff and hence the same liable to be set aside.

¶34

6.This appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions

¶35

of law :

¶36

(1)"Whether the Courts below are right in relying upon Ex.A1 & Ex.A3 document which is grama natham poromboke to confer title to plaintiff?

¶37

(2)Whether both Courts are right in holding that the disputed property is in S.No.145/2 or in S.No.144/46 without locating the dispute property?"

¶38

Page 4 of 9

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

S.A.No.667 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶41

7.The facts reveal that the plaintiff purchased the property from

¶42

one Malliga through a sale deed / Ex.A1 dated 24.09.2003 and there is an error in the boundary description and the same was rectified by the vendor through a rectification deed / Ex.A3 thereby, the plaintiff claimed that in S.No.145/2 he purchased the property within four boundaries as described in the plaint schedule and the portion 'EGHI' an extent of 128 Sq.ft. is said to be encroached by the defendant which is forming part of the property purchased by her and hence, she filed the suit. But the defendant submits that 'EGHI' portion is not situate in S.No.145/2 but it is a poromboke land in S.F.No.144/46 and he being adjacent land owner in S.No.144/44 the Government constructed a bathroom in the said poromboke land in S.F.No.144/46 shown as 'EGHI' by the plaintiff as if it belongs to him thereby, he denied the title of the suit property. As plaintiff approached the Court for the relief of declaration, to prove the title over the suit property 'EGHI' absolutely by way of purchase and he produced the sale deed / Ex.A1 and rectification deed / Ex.A3. As per the said deeds, the plaintiff

¶43

Page 5 of 9

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶45

S.A.No.667 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶46

purchased the property in S.No.145/2 and denied that the suit property 'EGHI' is not covered under the property purchased by her nor it is a patta land but it is a poromboke land in S.F.No.144/46. Admittedly, the plaintiff purchased the property in S.No.145/2 in Village Natham.

¶47

On seeing the boundary found in the sale deed, the plaintiff's property is on the west of Ellaippa Naidu (defendant) and to the east of the plaintiff's property there is a street. The plaintiff's property is in existence up to the boundary of the street. The rough plan annexed in the plaint clearly established that the suit 'EGHI' is situated on the east of the panchayath road and and also forming part of the property purchased by the plaintiff in S.No.145/2. The Village Administrative Officer examined as DW2 also categorically admitted that there is a panchayath road on the eastern side of the land of Malliga (plaintiff's vendor). Moreover, FMB map / Ex.B1 filed also reveals that panchayath road is sub divided as S.No.144/46. So there is no poromboke land as claimed by the defendant and the property belongs to the defendant is in S.F.No.144 and the

¶48

Page 6 of 9

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶50

S.A.No.667 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶51

property belongs to the plaintiff is in S.No.145/2 and sub divided 145/11A. With the help of revenue records as well as title deed, the plaintiff was able to establish that the suit property 'EGHI' portion is forming part of the property purchased by her in S.F.No.145/2 and the same is encroached by the defendant. Even though the defendant claimed that it is a poromboke land wherein the Government constructed a bathroom and enjoyed the property, when he fails to establish the same, it clearly implies that he encroached the said portion and hence, both the Courts below rightly appreciated the title deeds as well as the evidence of DW2 and was right in holding that the disputed property is in S.F.No.145/2 and there is no necessity to appoint a Commissioner because the Village Administrative Officer / DW2 clearly identified the property as well as through FMB / Ex.B1, location of the suit property also was clearly established and the same was rightly appreciated by the Courts below which needs no interference. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law 1 & 2 are answered.

¶52

Page 7 of 9

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

S.A.No.667 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶55

The findings given by the Courts below is confirmed and the

¶56

suit is decreed as prayed for no order as to cost. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶57

09.09.2022

¶58

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order mtl

¶59

Page 8 of 9

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶61

S.A.No.667 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶62

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J. mtl

¶63

¶64

1.The Subordinate Court, Vellore

¶65

2.The Principal District Munsif Court, Vellore.

¶66

3.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.

¶67

S.A.No.667 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

¶68

09.09.2022

¶69

Page 9 of 9

¶70

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Anbumani v. S.Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anbumani v. S.Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Sivasamy Vs Kamalaveni

R.Loganathan Vs G.Babuji

Putalayee Ammal Vs Murugan

S.Kannan Vs R.Kuppusamy

Pandurangan Vs Sivakami Ammal

L.Narayanan Vs K.Chella @ Selvaraj