Second appeal against concurrent dismissal of a suit for declaration of title and mandatory injunction over ancestral joint family property. The court held the suit failed for non-joinder of necessary party Kasi Ammal and for want of evidence of partition, and that revenue patta does not confer title.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.01.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
S.A.No.26 of 2013
& M.P. No.1 of 2013
N.Palanivel
... Appellant
Vs.
1.Murugan
2.Venkatesan
3.The Superintendent Engineer, TNEB, Vengikkal, Tiruvannamalai Town, Tiruvannamalai District.
4.Mrs.Senthamil Selvi 5.Aravind(minor) 6.Shalini(minor) 7.Kasiammal
... Defendants
(RR4 to 7 bring on record as the Lrs of the deceased R1 viz.,Murugan vide order of this Court dated 25.01.2013 made in MP.No.2 of 2013 in SA No.26 of 2013, TKRJ)
2
Prayer :- This Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and decree dated 05.09.2012 in A.S.No.44 of 2011 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge at Tiruvannamalai confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.06.2011 passed in O.S.No.500 of 2005 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Munsif at Tiruvannamalai.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Ayyadurai, SC for Mr.J.Manogar For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajarajan for RR2, 4 & 7 Ms.Hemalatha Gajapathy for R3
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and decree dated 05.09.2012 in A.S.No.44 of 2011 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai confirming the judgment and decree dated 24.06.2011 passed in O.S.No.500 of 2005 by the learned Additional District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai.
3
He had presented the suit for declaration of his right over ''A'' schedule mentioned property and also for mandatory injunction to evict and deliver the vacant possession of ''B'' schedule mentioned property to the plaintiff and further mandatory injunction to direct the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, Thiruvannamalai to disconnect the electricity service connection bearing no.1187 at Vedanthavadi village, Tiruvannamalai Taluk situated in B schedule property in the name of 1st defendant.
4
his first wife and through her, he had begotten one female child namely Rathinammal. After the demise of first wife, Govinda Gounder married one Pattuammal and through whom he had begotten a female child namely, Kasi Ammal. The defendants 1 & 2 are the sons of Kasi Ammal.
5.The plaintiff further pleaded that in the partition among three brothers, the suit schedule mentioned property fell to the second son of Narayanasamy and on the death of Narayanasamy, his 3 sons namely Murugesan, Kuppusamy and N.Palanivel (plaintiff) partitioned the properties among themselves. According to the plaintiff, the suit property fell to his share and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. After the demise of Govinda Gounder, his 2nd wife remarried one Govindasamy gounder and the defendants 1 and 2 who are the sons of 2nd daughter of Govinda Gounder have no right or title over the suit schedule property.
5
mentioned property fell to the share jointly to Rathina Ammal and Kasi Ammal. The latter had further divided the property among themselves
and the suit property was taken exclusively by Kasi Ammal.
(i) Whether the Courts below have committed an error in not considering the contention of the appellant/plaintiff that the patta issued under Tamil Nadu Act 4 of 1986 was the prima facie evidence of title regarding gramanatham occupied by him?
(ii) Whether the finding of the Courts below that the partition among the surviving sons of the common ancestors Ramasamy Gounder pleaded by the appellant/Plaintiff was not substantiated is perverse?''
Mr.J.Manogar and Mr.R.Rajarajan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2, 4 & 7 and Ms.Hemalatha Gajapathy, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.
6
on the date of the presentation of the plaint, she was not made as a party to the suit. The defendants Murugan and Venkatesan claimed the suit property only through Kasi Ammal and as long as their mother is alive, they did not get any right, title or interest over the property other than spes successionis .
to have impleaded the person who actually has rival claim over the same. In this particular case, it is not the sons of Kasi Ammal, who have rival claim over the suit property but Kasi Ammal herself, who should have been impleaded as a party to the suit.
7
specifically pleaded that in sofar as the suit properties are concerned, Kasi Ammal is the absolute owner and non-impleading her is fatal to the suit. At least after this defence had been taken, the plaintiff should have impleaded Kasi Ammal as a party to the suit. Unfortunately, he has not done so and therefore, it is fatal to the suit and apart from this objection on the basis of Order I Rule 13 of CPC.
8
favour of Narayanasamy who is the father of the plaintiff and therefore, he is entitled for the decree as prayed for.
9
have already found that apart from ipse dixit of PW1, no evidence had been let in by the plaintiff to prove the partition in respect of suit property. Therefore, I am constrained to answer both the questions of law
against the appellant and in favour of the defendants.
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
03.01.2024
dn
To
10
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN.J,
dn
SA.No.26 of 2013
03.01.2024
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a patta issued under Tamil Nadu Act 4 of 1986 is prima facie evidence of title over gramanatham property?
Whether the courts below erred in holding that the pleaded partition among the sons of the common ancestor was not substantiated?
Whether non-joinder of Kasi Ammal, the person with rival claim, is fatal to the suit?
3 provisions across 2 enactments
N.Palanivel
Murugan
Venkatesan
The Superintendent Engineer, TNEB, Vengikkal, Tiruvannamalai Town, Tiruvannamalai District
Mrs.Senthamil Selvi
Aravind(minor)
V.Lakshminarayanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
