Suit for declaration of title to land and injunction based on two sale deeds and a patta. The High Court found plaintiffs failed to prove their chain of title or revenue classification of the survey numbers, held the courts below perverse, allowed the defendant's second appeal, dismissed the plaintiffs' appeals, and dismissed the suit.
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.Nos.180 of 2018, 402 and 403 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.12.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTIC E R.HEMALATHA
S.A.Nos.180 of 2018, 402 and 403 of 2017
S.A.Nos.180 of 2018
(First appellant died and the second appellant was impleaded vide court order dated 12.10.2023 in C.M.P.No.1556/2022 in S.A.No.180/2018 )
S.A.No.402 of 2017
Narayana Padaiyachi (Died)
Page 1 of 14
S.A.Nos.180 of 2018, 402 and 403 of 2017
3. S.Anandan ... Respondents
(First respondent died, third respondent was impleaded vide court order dated 29.11.2023 made in C.M.P.No.26630/2023 in S.A.No.402/2017)
S.A.No.403 of 2017
Narayana Padaiyachi (Died)
(First respondent died, second respondent was impleaded vide court order dated 29.11.2023 made in C.M.P.No.26633/2023 in S.A.No.403/2017)
Prayer in S.A.No.180/2018 : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908 against the decree and judgment dated 23.09.2016 passed in A.S. No.25 of 2016, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Ariyalur, partly modifying the decree and judgment dated 26.10.2005 passed in O.S.No.175 of 2003, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Ariyalur.
Page 2 of 14
S.A.Nos.180 of 2018, 402 and 403 of 2017
Prayer in S.A.No.402/2017 : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908 against the decree and judgment dated 23.09.2016 passed in A.S. No.24 of 2016, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Ariyalur, partly modifying the decree and judgment dated 26.10.2005 passed in O.S.No.175 of 2003, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Ariyalur.
Prayer in S.A.No.403/2017 : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908 against the decree and judgment dated 23.09.2016 passed in A.S. No.25 of 2016, on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Court, Ariyalur, partly modifying the decree and judgment dated 26.10.2005 passed in O.S.No.175 of 2003, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Ariyalur.
In S.A.No.180/2018 :
For Appellant : Mr.K.S.Gnanasambandan for Mr.K.P.Ganasekaran For Respondents : Mr.S.Vijayakumar
In S.A.No.402/2017 :
For Appellants : Mr.S.Vijayakumar For R2 : No appearance For R3 : Mr.K.S.Gnanasambandan for Mr.K.P.Ganasekaran
In S.A.No.403/2017 :
Page 3 of 14
S.A.Nos.180 of 2018, 402 and 403 of 2017
For Appellants : Mr.S.Vijayakumar For R2 : Mr.K.S.Gnanasambandan for Mr.K.P.Ganasekaran
COMMON JUDGMENT
The appellants in S.A.Nos.402 and 403/2017 are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.175 of 2003, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court,
Ariyalur. The first appellant in S.A.No.180/2018 is the defendant in the above suit.
Page 4 of 14
S.A.Nos.180 of 2018, 402 and 403 of 2017
to the 'A' schedule property and for a mandatory injunction directing the defendant to remove the construction put up in 'A' schedule property and handover the vacant possession of the same. They have also prayed for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the 'B' schedule property.
their ranking in the trial court and at appropriate places, their rank in the present appeal would also be indicated.
The plaintiffs purchased A and B schedule properties through
two registered sale deeds dated 08.12.1978 (Ex.A2) and 04.08.1986 (Ex.A3) from one Duraisamy Kadanthaiyar, son of Alagappa Kadanthaiyar, and his minor sons and one Chinnapillai Padayachi. According to the first plaintiff, ever since the date of purchase he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and also obtained patta (Ex.A4) bearing number 1077. The defendant who is a total stranger
Page 5 of 14
S.A.Nos.180 of 2018, 402 and 403 of 2017
is attempting to interfere with the suit 'B' schedule property and also put up a construction in 'A' schedule property, when the plaintiffs were away from the suit village. Hence the suit.
grounds:
iii. The 'B' schedule property was not claimed by anyone.
Page 6 of 14
S.A.Nos.180 of 2018, 402 and 403 of 2017
iii. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a declaration of title to the suit properties through registered sale deeds dated 08.12.1978 and 04.08.1986 ?
iv. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the reliefs sought for by them ?
v. To what other relief, the plaintiffs are entitled ?"
marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6. The defendant examined himself and one
another witness on his side. However, no documentary evidence was adduced. An Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the trial court and he filed his report and plan, which were marked as Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 respectively.
Page 7 of 14
S.A.Nos.180 of 2018, 402 and 403 of 2017
record, partly decreed the suit vide his decree and judgment dated 26.10.2005. The learned trial court judge had held that since the plaintiffs have not proved their title over the 'A' schedule property they are not entitled to get a declaratory decree and a mandatory injunction in respect of the 'A' schedule property. However, the defendant was restrained from interfering with the 'B' schedule property.
Page 8 of 14
S.A.Nos.180 of 2018, 402 and 403 of 2017
“ Whether both the courts below are right in holding that the plaintiffs have got a right in respect of the 'B' schedule suit property, especially, when no acceptable documentary evidence was adduced on the side of the plaintiffs ?"
Page 9 of 14
S.A.Nos.180 of 2018, 402 and 403 of 2017
had stated that the property which he conveyed in favour of Narayana Padayachi belonged to him absolutely. However, it is not stated as to how Duraisamy Kadanthaiyar became entitled to survey number 251/1 measuring 1750 sq.ft. The parent document of Ex.A2 was not filed by the plaintiffs. In the schedule of Ex.A2, it is mentioned that a patta was issued in favour of Duraisamy Kadanthaiyar. However, the said patta was not filed. Similarly, in the sale deed dated 04.08.1986 (Ex.A3) the land in survey number 251/1 measuring 1250 sq.ft. was conveyed to the first plaintiff Narayana Padayachi by one Chinnapillai Padayachi. In the sale deed (Ex.A3) it is indicated that the vendor purchased the land in Natham survey number 251/1 measuring 1250 sq.ft. The plaintiffs have not adduced the parent documents of Ex.A3. The 'B' schedule property is indicated as plot numbers 1, 2 and 4 in S.No.251/1 (new survey number 432/4) measuring 0.02.13 square meters. The plaintiffs have not adduced any revenue records to show that survey number 251/1 was subsequently classified as 432/4. The plaintiffs also rely on the patta (Ex.A4) issued by the Head Quarters Tahsildar, Senthurai taluk, in respect of survey number 432/4 old survey number 251-2B/part. The suit properties are not in
Page 10 of 14
S.A.Nos.180 of 2018, 402 and 403 of 2017
survey number 251-2B/part and it is altogether a different property. This has not been properly explained by the plaintiffs. There is absolutely no evidence to show that survey number 251/1 was subsequently subdivided as 251-2B/part.
Page 11 of 14
S.A.Nos.180 of 2018, 402 and 403 of 2017
Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 for granting the reliefs in favour of the plaintiffs. The observations of both the courts below are totally perverse and therefore,
the substantial question of law framed in S.A.No.180/2018 is answered in favour of the appellant. Consequently, the appeals in S.A.Nos.402 and 403/2017 are dismissed.
16. In the result,
iii. the suit in O.S.No.175 of 2003, on the file of the Principal District
Musnif Court, Ariyalur, is dismissed with costs.
Page 12 of 14
S.A.Nos.180 of 2018, 402 and 403 of 2017
10.12.2024
Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order mtl
To
2. The Principal District Musnif Court, Ariyalur.
3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
Page 13 of 14
S.A.Nos.180 of 2018, 402 and 403 of 2017
R. HEMALATHA, J. mtl
S.A.Nos.180 of 2018, 402 and 403 of 2017
10.12.2024
Page 14 of 14
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the courts below were right in holding that the plaintiffs had title to the 'B' schedule property without acceptable documentary evidence?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Radha @ K.Radhakrishnan (Died)
S.Anandan
Govindarraj
Pattathal
Selvi
Vasuki
R. Hemalatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
