Partly allowed

B.Subbiah (Died) v. Muthukrishnan(Died)

Madras HC15 Jul 2024SA/1401/2001

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal over declaration and mandatory injunction regarding a courtyard and pathway claimed by the plaintiff as exclusive but described in the earliest title deeds of both sides as common. The High Court held the lower appellate court misread the boundary descriptions, declared the properties common, and directed removal of the defendants' construction and door, while denying recovery of pos

What did the court decide?

Judgment and decree of first appellate court set aside; declaration granted that B and C schedule properties are common; defendants directed to remove unauthorised construction and door; recovery of p

B.Subbiah (Died) Vs Muthukrishnan(Died) — Partition | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

S.A.No.1401 of 2001

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 15.07.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

¶6

S.A.No.1401 of 2001

B.Subbiah (Died)

2.Sasi Reka

3.Shanmuga Priya

4.Theepa Sri

... Appellants

1.Muthukrishnan (Died)

¶14

2.Sivapackiam Muthukrishnan (Died)

¶15

3.Meenalatha

¶16

4.Lakshmanan

¶17

5.Nagarajan

¶18

6.Suresh

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

(Respondents 3 to 6 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased 1^st respondent vide Court order dated 17.08.2023 made in C.M.P.No.8908/2002)

¶21

(Memo dated 26.06.2024 presented before the Court on 26.06.2024, is recorded as R2 died and R3 to R6, who are already on record, are recorded as LRs of the deceased R2 vide Court order dated 26.06.2024)

¶22

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.90 of 2000 on the file of the District Judge-Cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli, dated 09.03.2001 reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.544 of

¶23

1/14

¶24

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

¶25

23.09.1999.

¶26

S.A.No.1401 of 2001

¶27

1996 on the file of I Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli dated 23.09.1999.

¶28

For Appellants : Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Manimaran For Respondents : Mr.S.Palanivelayutham

¶29

JUDGMENT

¶30

The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. The suit is for declaration that the suit 2^nd schedule property belongs to the plaintiff absolutely and exclusively and for mandatory injunction to remove the unauthorised constructions made by the defendants in the suit 2^nd schedule property. The plaintiff also sought for mandatory injunction for removal of the doors put up by the defendants at the Eastern end of the third schedule pathway. The plaintiff also sought for recovery of possession for 2^nd schedule of property after removal of unauthorised constructions put up by the defendants. The suit was decreed by the trial Court. On an appeal filed by the defendants, the first appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff is before this Court.

¶31

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

¶32

2/14

¶33

S.A.No.1401 of 2001

¶34

2. According to the appellant/plaintiff, the suit property was purchased by his ancestor Mathurayya Pillai, under a registered sale deed dated 22.02.1885. The suit 2^nd schedule property is a vacant lane on the Eastern side of the 1^st schedule property. The suit 3^rd schedule property is a common pathway on the south of the 1^st schedule property. It was claimed by the plaintiff that after the death of Mathurayya Pillai, his grandson Balasubramanian, father of the plaintiff, has been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property and they also claimed joint possession and enjoyment of the 3^rd schedule common pathway. After the death of Balasubramanian, the other legal heirs of Balasubramanian, relinquished their share in favour of the plaintiff, by way of a registered release deed dated 04.05.1990. From the date of release, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It was also claimed by the plaintiff that the defendants, when the plaintiff's family are not in the locality, had put up a staircase encroaching a portion of the 2^nd schedule property. Likewise, the defendants had put up a door on the Eastern side of 3^rd schedule property obstructing the enjoyment. Hence, the plaintiff was constrained to file a suit for the above said reliefs.

¶35

3 . The defendants filed a written statement and resisted the suit by

¶36

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

¶37

3/14

¶38

S.A.No.1401 of 2001

¶39

denying the right of the plaintiff over the suit 2^nd and 3^rd schedule properties. It was also claimed by the defendants that the suit was bad for non-joinder of other legal heirs of Balasubramanian. The claim made by the plaintiff about his possession and enjoyment from the date of release deed was specifically denied by the defendants. It was claimed by the defendants that the property on the East of the suit property along with the suit 2^nd schedule property was purchased by predecessor of the defendant viz.,Subbiah Pillai under Ex.B2- sale certificate, dated 10.08.1925 in a Court auction sale. It was also claimed by the defendants that suit 2^nd schedule property has been in their exclusive possession for more than 50 years and the plaintiff never used the same. The defendants also denied the right of the plaintiff to use 3^rd schedule property and hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

¶40

4. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and yet another witness was examined as P.W.2. On behalf of the plaintiff, 5 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. The first defendant was examined as D.W.1 and two other witnesses were examined on behalf of the defendants as D.W.2 and D.W.3. 6 documents were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B6.

¶41

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

¶42

4/14

¶43

S.A.No.1401 of 2001

¶44

5. The trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled to exclusive right over the suit 2^nd schedule property and hence, granted declaration, mandatory injunction and possession as prayed for. As far as 3^rd schedule is concerned, the trial Court came to the conclusion that it was a common lane portion and hence, granted a decree for mandatory injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants preferred an appeal in A.S.No.90 of 2000 on the file of I Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli. The first appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the suit by holding that the plaintiff failed to prove his right over the suit 2^nd and 3^rd schedule properties. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has come by way of this Second Appeal.

¶45

6 . At the time of admission, this Court formulated the following substantial questions of law by an order dated 25.09.2001:

¶46

“1.Whether the lower appellate Court erred in law and misdirected itself in failing to note the admitted fact that the

¶47

5/14

¶48

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

¶49

S.A.No.1401 of 2001

¶50

third schedule is a common lane and the respondents have no exclusive right to put up a door way in the said common lane?

¶51

2.Whether the lower appellate Court erred in law and misdirected itself in proceeding as if the suit is bad for nonjoinder of parties when the appellant could institute the suit as a co-owner?

¶52

3.Whether the claim of title and exclusive right by the respondents on the basis of certain documents could be sustained on the facts of the case and without consideration of material documents and oral evidence?

¶53

7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant by taking this Court to the title documents of the plaintiff viz., Ex.A1 and Ex.A3 and the title documents of the defendants viz., Ex.B2, Ex.B4, Ex.B5 and Ex.B7 submitted that boundary description mentioned in those documents clearly established that suit 2^nd schedule property as well as 3^rd schedule properties are common properties and therefore, the defendants are not entitled to put up any obstructive construction in both the suit schedule properties. The learned Senior Counsel also submitted that after death of Balasubramanian, the plaintiff succeeded to the property as one of the heirs of Balasubramanian and the other children of Balasubramanian relinquished their share in favour of the plaintiff and

¶54

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

¶55

6/14

¶56

S.A.No.1401 of 2001

¶57

hence, he is entitled to maintain a suit in respect of the suit properties.

¶58

8 . On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the

¶59

respondents tried to sustain the judgment passed by the Courts below by submitting that the plaintiff claimed right over the Town Survey No.184 and defendants are claiming right over the Town Survey No.166 and the Advocate Commissioner found that 2^nd schedule property is situated in T.S.No.166 and therefore, the plaintiff failed to prove his right over the suit 2^nd schedule of property. The learned counsel also submitted that there is no evidence available on record to suggest that the mother of the plaintiff executed any release deed in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties viz., the mother and siblings of the plaintiff.

¶60

9. The plaintiff's predecessor in interest had purchased the suit

¶61

property under Ex.A1 dated 22.02.1885. The boundary description in Ex.A1 reads as follows:

¶62

“East of North-South street South of Nainar Pillai manai and common wall West of Thaiyal Pagam Pillai's house and common

¶63

7/14

¶64

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

¶65

S.A.No.1401 of 2001

¶66

Courtyard

¶67

North of common pathway belongs to seller under the document, Thiyal Pagam Pillai and Sankaralingam Pillai.”

¶68

10. Thaiyal Pagam Pillai referred to in Ex.A1 is the predecessor of the defendant. The Eastern boundary mentioned in Ex.A1 clearly proves that 2^nd schedule property was mentioned as a common courtyard belonged to both the parties. Likewise, the Southern boundary mentioned in Ex.A1 would suggest that 3^rd schedule property is a common pathway for plaintiff, defendant and one Sankaralingam Pillai. Ex.A1 is the earliest document filed by both the parties. A perusal of the same would suggest that both 2^nd and 3^rd schedule properties were described as common property of the parties.

¶69

11. The defendants purchased the suit property under Ex.B1 dated 20.05.1973. A perusal of the boundary description found in the said document would also suggest that 2 and 3^rd schedule of properties were common for both the parties. The said fact can be gathered from the Western boundary mentioned in Ex.B1 as “ nghJ eilghij kidf;Fk; kJiuahgps;is tPl;Lf;Fk; ,e;j tPl;Lf;Fk; nghJthd njd;tly; nghJRtUf;Fk; fpof;F”. The third schedule property has

¶70

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

¶71

8/14

¶72

S.A.No.1401 of 2001

¶73

been mentioned as 4^th item in Ex.B1. While describing the same, it was mentioned as “ kJiuahgps;is tPl;L RtUf;Fk; njw;F> ,jw;Fs;gl;l nghJ eilghijapy; gphptpd;wp Ngh;ghjp ghj;jpaKk;”. Therefore, the description of the property in Ex.B1 document filed by the defendants would suggest that 2^nd and 3^rd schedule properties were treated as common properties for both. Ex.B2 is the sale certificate in favour of defendants' purchaser in interest. EX.B2 is the earliest document filed by the defendants. In the said document, the four boundaries are mentioned as follows:

¶74

“East of common pathway belongs to Mathurayya Pillai, defendants (Omayya Pillai) and common wall.”

¶75

12 . It is seen from Ex.B1, one Subbiah Pillai, defendants'

¶76

predecessor filed a suit against Omaiyya Pillai and in execution of the decree obtained by him, he purchased the property of Omaiyya Pillai in Court auction sale with the permission of the Court. Therefore, the description of the property found in Ex.A1, Ex.B2 and Ex.B1 supports the case of the plaintiff that both 2^nd schedule property and 3^rd schedule property were treated as common properties for both the parties. The description found in Ex.B4 and Ex.B5 also supports the very same 9/14

¶77

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

¶78

S.A.No.1401 of 2001

¶79

conclusion. The first appellate Court, without properly considering the boundary description of the properties covered by the title document, has erroneously came to the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove his right over the suit property. In the documents relied on by the plaintiff as well as the defendants, there were no reference about the survey number of the property covered by the documents. The properties were described only by four boundaries. In such circumstances, the issue involved in this case has to be decided only based on the boundary description found in the title documents of the parties and it cannot be decided by referring to the survey number in which, 2^nd and 3^rd schedule properties were found to be situated. Therefore, the arguments made by the learned counsel for the respondents in this regard is rejected. The conclusion reached by the first appellate Court is a result of misreading of title documents of the respective parties and therefore, the said conclusion requires interference by this Court in this Second Appeal.

¶80

13. The property was originally purchased by one Mathuraiyya Pillai and he had a grandson Balasubramanian. After the death of Balasubramanian, his heirs succeeded to the property. It is the case of the plaintiff that the other children of Balasubramanian released their

¶81

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

¶82

10/14

¶83

S.A.No.1401 of 2001

¶84

share in his favour under Ex.A3, dated 04.05.1990. However, there is no evidence available on record to suggest that the wife of Balasubramanian released her share in favour of the plaintiff. In such circumstances, the first appellate Court came to the conclusion that the suit filed by the plaintiff claiming right over 2^nd schedule property and 3^rd schedule property is bad for non-joinder of mother and also other siblings. As far as brothers and sisters of the plaintiff are concerned, they have already released their share in favour of the plaintiff and the document was marked as Ex.A3. It appears the plaintiff has not established that the share of his mother was released in his favour and subsequently she died. Hence, her share devolved on her children. It is not clear whether release by siblings of plaintiff had taken place subsequent to death of mother. In such circumstances, the first appellate Court came to the conclusion that non-joinder of other heirs of Balasubramanian would be fatal to the suit. The defendants are third parties and they had put up construction in the suit 2^nd schedule property and 3^rd schedule property. The plaintiff is entitled to maintain a suit as co-owner for benefit of other co-owners also. Any decree passed in this suit in favour of the plaintiff is not only for his benefit and it is also for the benefit of other heirs of Balasubramanian. In case release by siblings had taken place subsequent

¶85

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

¶86

11/14

¶87

S.A.No.1401 of 2001

¶88

to death of mother, the release deed will confer absolute title to plaintiff. Even if mother died subsequent to release by siblings, the plaintiff is entitled to maintain the suit as co-onwer for the benefit of other co-

¶89

owners/siblings. The issue with regard to the non-joinder of necessary party is answered accordingly.

¶90

14. In view of the discussion made earlier,

¶91

a) the Second Appeal is partly allowed by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court;

¶92

b) The plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the suit 2^nd and 3^rd properties are common properties of the plaintiff and the defendants;

¶93

c) The defendants are directed to remove the unauthorised construction put up by them in the suit B schedule property;

¶94

d) The defendants are directed to remove the door put up in the suit 3^rd schedule property; and

¶95

e) Since the plaintiff is granted declaration of his common right over B schedule property less than the exclusive right claimed by him, he is not entitled to any recovery of possession. Accordingly, the suit is dismissed in respect of prayer for recovery of possession.

¶96

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

¶97

12/14

¶98

S.A.No.1401 of 2001

¶99

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶100

15.07.2024

¶101

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No

¶102

vsm

¶103

¶104

1.The District Judge-Cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli.

¶105

2.I Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli

¶106

3.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶107

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

¶108

13/14

¶109

S.A.No.1401 of 2001

¶110

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

¶111

vsm

¶112

S.A.No.1401 of 2001

¶113

15.07.2024

¶114

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

¶115

14/14

B.Subbiah (Died) v. Muthukrishnan(Died)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Subbiah (Died) v. Muthukrishnan(Died)

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

Subramania Pattar Vs Arunachalam

Renganathan (Died) Vs P.S.Thanjai Mathi

Philominal Vs Tmt.Arokia Mary(died)

K.Karuppasamy Vs P.Kasimani

Otchayee @ Thangammal Vs the Divisional Excise Officer

T.Muthu (Died) Vs Arulandu (Died)