The High Court dismissed this Second Appeal challenging recovery of possession. The trial and appellate courts found the property was self-acquired by the plaintiff's father based on a settlement deed, and the appellant failed to prove it was ancestral.
Second Appeal dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no costs awarded.
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(MD).No.142 of 2023
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 27.03.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
S.A.(MD)No.142 of 2023 and C.M.P(MD)No.2919 of 2023 Murugan .... Appellant/Appellant/Defendant
Vs.
Selvakumar ... Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff
Prayer : Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 26.04.2022 passed in A.S.No.84 of 2020 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, confirming the judgement and decree dated 22.09.2020 passed in O.S.No.335 of 2016 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli.
For Appellant : Mr.T.Selvan
J U D G M E N T
This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below. The appellant is the defendant in the suit.
Munsif, Tirunelveli was filed for recovery of possession by the respondent/ plaintiff. The appellant is the brother of the respondent. The respondent
S.A(MD).No.142 of 2023
claimed ownership of the suit schedule property by virtue of a settlement deed dated 08.04.2013, which has been marked as Ex.A.1 before the trial court and the settlement deed was executed by the respondent / plaintiff's father out of natural love and affection. Subsequent to the execution of the settlement deed (Ex.A.1), revenue records have also been mutated in the name of the respondent/plaintiff and a patta has been issued in his favour, which has been marked as Ex.A.3.
S.A(MD).No.142 of 2023
was marked as Ex.A.6. On the side of the appellant/defendant, he filed 2 documents namely, patta standing in the joint names, which includes the name of the respondent/plaintiff along with the name of the appellant/ defendant's father and it was a joint patta. The said document was marked as Ex.B.1. The appellant/defendant also filed a sale deed dated 23.05.2012, which is marked as Ex.B.2.
S.A(MD).No.142 of 2023
as claimed by the appellant/defendant but they have categorically contended
that it is a self acquired property of the respondent/plaintiff's father The respondent/plaintiff has discharged his burden of proving his case that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property by filing the settlement deed dated 08.04.2013 executed in his favour, which has been marked as Ex.A.1 as well as patta dated 14.02.2014 standing in his name, which has been marked as Ex.A.3. Admittedly, patta filed by the appellant/defendant, which has been marked as Ex.B.1 also stands in the joint names which includes the name of the respondent/plaintiff, the appellant/defendant and their father who had executed the settlement deed dated 08.04.2013 in favour of the respondent/ plaintiff. The said patta was issued prior to the execution of the settlement deed dated 08.04.2013 in favour of the respondent/plaintiff.
trial court has decreed the suit in favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The lower Appellate Court has also confirmed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant/defendant. As rightly held by the courts below, the respondent//plaintiff having discharged his burden of proving his case that he is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property,
S.A(MD).No.142 of 2023
it is for the appellant/defendant to disprove the contention of the respondent/plaintiff that the property settled in his favour was a self acquired property of his father and not an ancestral property. Since the onus to disprove the respondent/ plaintiff's case has been shifted to the appellant/ defendant and the appellant/defendant having failed to discharge his burden, the courts below have rightly held in favour of the respondent/ plaintiff.
27.03.2023
Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No CM
S.A(MD).No.142 of 2023
To
3.The Section Officer,
VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
S.A(MD).No.142 of 2023
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
CM
S.A.(MD)No.142 of 2023 and C.M.P(MD)No.2919 of 2023
27.03.2023
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Second Appeal is maintainable involving substantial questions of law when the issues are merely factual.
Whether the appellant discharged his burden to prove the property was ancestral to defeat the settlement deed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Murugan
Selvakumar
Abdul Qudhosse
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
