In this second appeal regarding declaration of title and injunction, the High Court dismissed the appeal. Upholding the findings of the lower courts, it held that the appellant failed to produce documentary or oral evidence to prove title over Survey No. 622/1, which the respondent had proved to be his property via patta.
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.1161 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.07.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
S.A.No.1161 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012
Subramanian
... Appellant
Vs.
Sundaram (Died) Mahalingam
... Respondent
PRAYER : This Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree of the Additional Sub-ordinate Judges Court at Vriddhachalam in A.S.No.44 of 2011 dated 05.01.2012 concurring with the judgment and decree of the Principal District Munsif Court at Vriddhachalam in O.S.No.145 of 2001 dated 30.10.2010.
For Appellant : Mr.C.Prabakaran for Mr.V.Anand For Respondent : Mr.S.Mayilnathan for Mr.D.Shivakumaran
1/8
S.A.No.1161 of 2012
O R D E R
The unsuccessful plaintiff in the suit is the appellant herein. He filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal in A.S.No.44 of 2011 on the file of Additional Sub-Ordinate Judge, Vriddhachalam. The First Appellate Court partly allowed the appeal by granting declaration and injunction in respect of Survey No. 622/16 and affirmed the findings of the Trial Court in respect of Survey No.622/1. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant has come before this Court by way of second appeal.
2/8
S.A.No.1161 of 2012
3/8
S.A.No.1161 of 2012
questions of law vide order dated 23.11.2012 and the same reads as follows:-
1) When it is a specific plea of the plaintiff regarding ancestral nature of the suit property comprised in R.S.No.622/16 and R.S.No.622/1, in the light of the specific defence in the written statement that there is no manure pit in R.S.No.622/1, whether the Courts below are correct in law in dismissing the suit against the reports filed by the Advocate Commissioner stating that there is a manure pit comprising of the two survey numbers?
2) Whether the Courts below are correct in law in expecting documentary evidence regarding title deeds for the suit property which is in possession of the family of the plaintiff for many generations?
3) Whether the Courts below are correct in law in deciding the suit without adverting to the pleadings of parties to the suit?
6. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
appellant/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and injunction and to hand over possession of item 2 of the plaint schedule property in Survey No.622/1. Though the First Appellate Court accepted the title of the plaintiff over the property in Survey No.622/16 and declared his right over the property and granted injunction as prayed for, dismissed the suit with regard to item 2 of the suit
4/8
S.A.No.1161 of 2012
property in Survey No.622/1. The First Appellate Court failed to consider the report of the Advocate Commissioner filed in this case. Without considering the relevant evidence, passed the judgment and decree and declined to grant the relief to the appellant/plaintiff with regard to item 2 of the suit schedule property erroneously and hence, pleaded to allow the second appeal.
5/8
S.A.No.1161 of 2012
The 2nd defendant is not claiming any right over the the 1st item of the property in Survey No.622/16. The 2nd item of the property is in Survey No. 622/1 in which the defendant claims right.The contention of the plaintiff is that Survey No.622/16 includes the 2nd item of the schedule property. The 2nd item of the schedule property is the part of the 1st item of the suit schedule property. To support the contentions of learned counsel for the appellant, no sufficient evidence was let in to prove that the 2nd item of the schedule property is part of 1st item of the suit schedule property. Admittedly, the 2nd item of the schedule property is in Survey No.622/1. Though it is averred in the plaint that the property in Survey No.622/1 belongs to the plaintiff, he failed to produce any document to show that the property in Survey No.622/1 belongs to him. On the other hand, the 2nd defendant has let in evidence to show that the property in Survey No.622/1 was owned by him and patta has also been issued in the year 1997 and the same was marked as Ex.B1.
6/8
S.A.No.1161 of 2012
the plaintiff is not having any title over the 2nd item of the suit schedule property and therefore, declined to grant relief with regard to item 2 of the suit schedule property and granted relief with regard to item 1 of the plaint schedule property in Survey No.622/16 and also granted injunction in respect of possession. Both the Courts below, by taking into consideration the evidence available on record, rightly came to the conclusion that the appellant/plaintiff failed to prove the title and hence, I do not find any perversity in the findings rendered by the Courts below.
b) In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
c) Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
04.07.2024
Internet : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non Speaking order
7/8
S.A.No.1161 of 2012
nr
V.SIVAGNANAM,J.
nr
To
1.The Additional Sub-ordinate Court, Vriddhachalam
S.A.No.1161 of 2012 and M.P.No.1 of 2012
04.07.2024
8/8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Courts below were correct in law in deciding the suit without adverting to the pleadings of parties when the plaintiff failed to produce documentary evidence despite a specific plea of anc
Whether the absence of sufficient evidence to prove that the second item of the suit schedule property is part of the first item, combined with the presence of patta in the defendant's name, justifies
Subramanian
Sundaram (Died) Mahalingam
V. SIVAGNANAM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
