Two appeals challenging the dismissal of suits for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The High Court held that plaintiffs failed to identify the suit properties, relying on the trial court's findings, and dismissed the appeals.
Appeal suits dismissed. Plaintiffs free to identify properties and proceed according to law.
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.
A.S.Nos.56 and 57 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.12.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
A.S.Nos.56 and 57 of 2011
A.S.No.56 of 2011:-
Page 1 of 14
A.S.Nos.56 and 57 of 2011
Prayer: First Appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC praying to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2010 in O.S.No.1785 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Chennai with costs.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Sakthivel
For R1 : No appearance For R2 and R3 : Mr.S.Balasubramaniam
A.S.No.57 of 2011:-
-Vs-
Prayer: First Appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC praying to allow the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2010 in O.S.No.1786 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Chennai with costs.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Sakthivel For R1 : No appearance For R2 and R3 : Mr.S.Balasubramaniam
Page 2 of 14
A.S.Nos.56 and 57 of 2011
COMMON JUDGMENT
These appeal suits have been filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 12.07.2010 in O.S.Nos.1785 and 1786 of 2004 passed by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Chennai, thereby dismissed the suits filed for declaration and recovery of possession.
defendants. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the Trial Court.
A.S.Nos.56 and 57 of 2011
Krishnamani. He laid out plots and sold the plots to various persons. The suit property was sold out in favour of one Seethalakshmi by a registered Sale deed dated 18.05.1971. In turn, she had sold out the same in favour of her husband and plaintiffs 2 to 6 by the registered sale deed dated 09.07.1982. While being so, during the last week of the month of March 2004, the second defendant trespassed into the house plot and claimed ownership of the said plot. Therefore, the plaintiffs lodged a police complaint and issued notice. However, the defendants 1 and 2 sold out the said property in favour of the third defendant. Hence, the suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 14
A.S.Nos.56 and 57 of 2011
the said property in favour of the third defendant. Hence, the suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 14
A.S.Nos.56 and 57 of 2011
The revenue authorities measured the properties as per FMB and informed to
the plaintiffs that the suit properties are located on the eastern side of the land owned by the first defendant. In fact, the boundaries of the suit properties and the land owned by the first defendant are also completely different. All the documents were duly produced before the concerned Police Station, on the complaint lodged by the plaintiffs and they were advised to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief. They also concluded that there is mistaken identity of the property. The first defendant, authorised the second defendant by way of the Power of Attorney to sell the house Plot Nos.9 to 13, ad-measuring 12,400 sq.ft.
issues:-
“ 1.Whether the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1785 and 1786/04
Page 6 of 14
A.S.Nos.56 and 57 of 2011
are entitled to declaration of title as prayed for in the respective suits?
2. Whether the defendants in the suits O.S.No.1785 and
1786/04 are liable to hand over vacant possession to the plaintiff's in the respective suits?
3. Whether the plaintiff's have proved the identification
of property in their suits?
4. To what relief?”
marked Exs.A1 to 15. On the side of the defendants, they had examined D.W.1 and marked Exs.B1 to 8. On perusal of oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court dismissed the suit. Hence, these Appeal suits.
Page 7 of 14
A.S.Nos.56 and 57 of 2011
properties purchased by the plaintiffs are approved one and it was categorically admitted by the defendants.
Page 8 of 14
A.S.Nos.56 and 57 of 2011
by the plaintiffs are concerned, it were located on the eastern side of the property owned by the defendants. Though the plaintiffs contended that the suit properties are approved plots, they failed to produce any document to show that the suit properties were approved one. In the lay out plan they simply mentioned DTCP number without any records. It does not contain any seal or signature from the authority concerned for approval. That apart, even according to the plaintiffs the suit properties are situated in S.No.317/1. It was admitted by P.W.1. Pending suit, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed. It is also to be noted that the extent of the property which is possessed by the third defendant and the suit property differs. Therefore, the suit property is no way connected with the property which is in possession and enjoyment of the third defendant. The boundaries are also different in both the properties from the respective exhibits. That apart, the patta also issued in the name of the first defendant insofar as the property purchased by the first defendant from his vendor. However, no patta was issued in favour of the plaintiffs, though she purchased the suit property in the year 1982. The suit is filed for declaration and injunction and as such, the burden is on the plaintiffs to prove her case. When the plaintiffs failed to discharge her burden, the defendants could probabilize the defence by filing documents on their side. Therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled for any relief.
Page 9 of 14
A.S.Nos.56 and 57 of 2011
A.S.Nos.56 and 57 of 2011
the Court can very much interfere and identify the property with the help of the Surveyor. Whereas, in the case on hand, the defendants identified their property and the first and second defendants sold out the property in favour of the third defendant and he is in possession and enjoyment of the property. Therefore, the Judgment cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs is not helpful to the case on hand.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 11 of 14
A.S.Nos.56 and 57 of 2011
service connection.
Page 12 of 14
A.S.Nos.56 and 57 of 2011
13.12.2023
Internet: Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order mn
To The Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court-V, Chennai.
Page 13 of 14
A.S.Nos.56 and 57 of 2011
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN. J,
mn
A.S.Nos.56 and 57 of 2011
13.12.2023
Page 14 of 14
2 issues framed by the court
Whether plaintiffs are entitled to declaration and injunction despite failing to identify their property?
Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the suits for declaration and recovery of possession due to lack of property identification?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Boomathi (died) and other Vs Murugesan (died) and othersExplained¶15
CDJ 2023 MHC 2411
V.B.Karunagiri (died) and others
S.M.Gandhi (died)
S.Veeraraghavan
R.Shamugaraj
Murugesa Naicker
G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
