Second appeal by unsuccessful plaintiff seeking declaration of title and injunction over vacant land. Both lower courts found he failed to prove execution of the 1981 sale deed or his possession; the High Court answered both substantial questions of law against him.
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.120 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA S.A.No.120 of 2018
Kubendra Kumar S/o. Kannan Aged 65 years Se. Kunnathur Village, Villupuram Taluk
.....Appellant
vs
Ayyanar S/o. Janakirama Gounder Aged 55 years Se. Kunnathur Village, Villupuram Taluk .... Respondent
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908 against the decree and judgment dated 10.08.2017 passed in A.S. No.32 of 2013, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court,Villupuram, upholding the decree and judgment dated 18.06.2013 passed in O.S.No.184 of 2011, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Villupuram.
Page 1 of 12
For Appellant : Mr. R. Srinatha for Ms. S. Uma For Respondent : No appearance
S.A.No.120 of 2018
JUDGMENT
The unsuccessful plaintiff before both the Courts below has filed the present second appeal. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.184/2011 before the Principal District Munsif, Villupuram for declaration of his title to the suit property and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit property is described in the plaint as a vacant land in survey number 13/2 of Kunnathur Village, Villupuram Taluk, Villupuram District, admeasuring 456 ½ sq.ft within the boundaries stated therein.
their ranking in the trial court and at appropriate places, their rank in the
present second appeal would also be indicated.
Page 2 of 12
S.A.No.120 of 2018
3.The case of the plaintiff in a nutshell is as follows :
3.1. The suit property originally belonged to Janakirama
Gounder. The plaintiff's father Kannan Chettiar purchased the suit property from Janakirama Gounder, father of the defendant under a registered sale deed dated 26.12.1981 (Ex.A1). Ever since the date of purchase, the plaintiff's father was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. After the death of the plaintiff's father, the plaintiff and his two brothers, namely, Mallikarjunan and Anand partitioned the suit property and each of them were allotted 1/3 share. Subsequently, the brothers of the plaintiff executed a registered sale deed dated 15.12.1986 (Ex.A2) in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by raising neem trees.
3.2. While so, the defendant attempted to trespass into the suit
property without any right. He, therefore, issued a legal notice dated 25.01.2011 (Ex.A3) to the defendant. Since the said notice did not evoke Page 3 of 12
S.A.No.120 of 2018
any response from the defendant, the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of his title to the suit property and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
grounds:
Page 4 of 12
S.A.No.120 of 2018
6. In the trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself and one
another witness and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. The defendant examined himself and marked Ex.B1 and Ex.B8.
Page 5 of 12
S.A.No.120 of 2018
documentary evidence adduced on both sides, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff vide her decree and judgment dated 18.06.2013 on the following grounds:
Page 6 of 12
S.A.No.120 of 2018
8.Aggrieved over the decree and judgment passed by the trial
court judge, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S. No.32 of 2013, before the Principal Subordinate Judge, Villupuram. The learned Principal Subordinate Judge, after analysing the oral and documentary evidence on record, upheld the findings recorded by the trial court vide his decree and judgment dated 10.08.2017, as against which the present second appeal is filed.
on the following substantial questions of law:
"(a) Is the Courts below in dismissing the suit by holding that Ex.A1 is a fabricated document, in the absence of any such pleadings and evidence of the defendant?
(b) Is the courts below right in dismissing the suit despite the plaintiff has proved title to the suit property by filing Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 sale deeds by making necessary pleadings and deposing in evidence?
Page 7 of 12
S.A.No.120 of 2018
There is no representation on behalf of the respondent.
11.1. According to the plaintiff, subsequent to the execution of
Page 8 of 12
S.A.No.120 of 2018
Ex.A1 sale deed, his brothers executed a sale deed Ex.A2 in his favour in respect of their shares in the suit property. However, the boundaries shown in Ex.A1 are totally different from the one found in Ex.A2. It is also relevant to point out that one Ramu Chettiar filed a suit in O.S.No.1261/1988 before the District Munsif, Villupuram against Janakirama Gounder and others and obtained a decree in his favour. He also filed an Execution Petition in E.P. No.25/1991 before the same court and in the execution proceedings, the present suit property was shown as item number 6. The plaintiff in his evidence had admitted that he knew the earlier proceedings in O.S.No.1261/1988 between Ramu Chettiar and the defendant's father. The plaintiff also admitted that he did not raise any objection to the execution proceedings especially when the suit property is shown as one of the items. Moreover, P.W.2 admitted that the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by putting up a construction. In the circumstances, the plaintiff has not proved his possession over the suit property. Absolutely there is no documentary evidence to substantiate that the plaintiff's father was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property ever since the date of Page 9 of 12
S.A.No.120 of 2018
purchase under Ex.A1 sale deed. Both the courts below had, in fact, analysed the evidence on record threadbare and had come to a conclusion that the plaintiff has not proved his case. Thus, the substantial questions of law are answered accordingly.
21.11.2024
Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order bga To
Page 10 of 12
S.A.No.120 of 2018
2. The Principal District Munsif, Villupuram.
3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
Page 11 of 12
3 issues framed by the court
Did the plaintiff prove title to the suit property under sale deeds Ex.A1 and Ex.A2?
Was Ex.A1 a forged document?
Had the plaintiff established possession and enjoyment of the suit property?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kubendra Kumar
Ayyanar
R. Hemalatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
