Two cross second appeals over competing title claims to land in Survey No.60/20 were decided on preponderance of evidence: the plaintiff's sale deed and patta matched the survey number and extent, while the defendants' title deed showed an altered survey number. The court confirmed the lower appellate court's decrees and dismissed both appeals.
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. 461 & 469 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.12.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
S.A. Nos.461 & 469 of 2012
S.A.No.461 of 2012
Malli's Resorts (P) Ltd., Rep. By its Managing Director, A.V.Vinod Kumar Reddy Flat No.3, Marer Estate, 102 South West Boag Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. ... Appellant / Plaintiff
Vs.
L.Leela rep. By her Power Agent Mr.M.B.Prakash Devaneri village, ECR Road, Thirukkalikundram. ...Respondent / Defendant
Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2011 in A.S.No.30 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2010 in O.S.No.43/2002 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirukkalikundram.
1/18
S.A.Nos. 461 & 469 of 2012
S.A.No.469 of 2012
Vs.
L.Leela rep. By her Power Agent Mr.M.B.Prakash Devaneri village, ECR Road, Thirukkalikundram. ...Respondent / Plaintiff
Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 30.05.2011 in A.S.No.32 of 2010 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Chengalpattu, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.08.2010 in O.S.No.87/2001 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirukkalikundram.
In both appeals:
For Appellants : Mrs.R.V.Gayathri for Mr.P.B.Ramanujam For Respondents : Mrs.V.Srimathi
2/18
S.A.Nos. 461 & 469 of 2012
COMMON JUDGMENT
S.A.No.461/2012
The plaintiff is the appellant. A suit in O.S.No.43 of 2002 has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for seeking the relief of permanent injunction and the same was dismissed by the trial Court and the First Appeal preferred by the plaintiff also got dismissed by confirming the judgement of the trial Court. Hence the plaintiff has filed this second appeal.
The suit property was originally belonged to one Saraswathy Ammal and Munusamy who had sold the same in favour of one Maya Krishnan and Pattammal through a registered sale deed dated 21.05.1993. The said Maya Krishnan and Pattammal had sold the suit property in favour of the plaintiff through a sale deed dated 24.01.1996. The plaintiff has purchased the lands in Survey Number in S.Nos.55,56,57,60, 61, 62 and 63 which comprises nearly 27 Acres in one block. The plaintiff had converted 27 Acres which is inclusive of the suit property into farm resorts measuring 11 Cents each. The Farm Nos.20 and 33 as shown in the layout sketch forms part of the suit property in Survey No.60/20. The total extent purchased by the plaintiff from
3/18
S.A.Nos. 461 & 469 of 2012
Maya Krishnan and another in S.No.60/20 was 13 cents. Out of the same the plaintiff has sold 0.07 cents to the third parties and retained 0.06 Cents. He has got a separate patta in respect of the remaining 6 Cents, which is being used as a pathway. The plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same without any disturbance. All of a sudden the defendant gave out a threat for forcible dispossession of the plaintiff. The defendant is a total stranger who has got no interest in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff had perfected title to the suit property by long continuous and uninterrupted possession for more than the statuary period. Since the defendant caused trouble over the plaintiff's possession, the plaintiff has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants.
The defendant is the absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property. She purchased the suit Survey No.60/20 which comprised an extent of 17 Cents which is inclusive of suit property measuring of 0.06 cents, from Ranganathan and others through a registered sale deed dated 30.12.1987. From then onwards the defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The original patta has been standing in the name of the defendants
4/18
S.A.Nos. 461 & 469 of 2012
predecessors in title. Later the defendant got it transferred in his name. By virtue of a long, continuous and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment over the suit property, the defendant and her predecessors had perfected title in the suit property. The alleged vendors of the plaintiff namely Maya Krishnan and Pattammal have no title or possession or interest in the suit property. Hence, they cannot pass any title in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.108/2001 against the defendant and her husband in respect of the suit property and subsequently had withdrawn the same. The said fact was suppressed in the suit. The suit property has not been described properly. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and it is barred by Res judicata.
following issues:
" 1.tHf;Fiu ml;ltizr; brhj;J jhth njjpapy; thjpapd; RthjPd mDgtj;jpy; cs;sjh>
5/18
S.A.Nos. 461 & 469 of 2012
witness has been examined as PW.1 and Exs.A1 to Ex.A11 were marked. On
the side of the defendant, two witnesses have been examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B13 were marked.
S.A.No.467/2002:
6/18
S.A.Nos. 461 & 469 of 2012
brief :
The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property by purchase through a registered sale deed dated 30.12.1987 from one Ranganathan and others and he in enjoyment of the same from the date of its purchase. The original patta was standing in the name of Munusamy Nayakkar who is the father of the plaintiff's vendor. After the purchase, the patta has been transferred in the name of plaintiff. The plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by virtue of long, continuous and uninterrupted enjoyment over the suit property. The plaintiff has perfected the title through adverse possession also. The plaintiff had executed a power of attorney deed in favour of M.B.Prakash on 12.09.2001. The defendants do not have any right or title or interest over the suit property. They have never been in possession of the suit property. The defendants 1 and 2 have claimed false claim over the suit property and tried to disturb the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment, hence the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
defendant and adopted by the 2nd defendant and the legal heirs of the
7/18
S.A.Nos. 461 & 469 of 2012
deceased 1st defendant who have been subsequently impleaded as D3 to D5, in brief:
It is denied that the suit property was purchased by Leela and Ranganathan and others under a sale deed dated 30.12.1987. The description of the property is not correct. The defendants are not in possession and enjoyment of the same. The suit property has been in possession and enjoyment of the defendants vendors for several years and they have now passed title in favour of the defendants through sale deeds dated 15.05.2000 and 05.03.1999 respectively. Subsequent to the purchase, the defendants 1 and 2 have taken possession and they were in enjoyment of the same. The 1st defendant had put up a farm house and living there by paying house tax and the 2nd defendant has been enjoying the farm resorts. The suit property is not vacant as alleged by the plaintiff. The vendors of the defendant had purchased the suit property which is 13 cents in Survey Number in S.No.60/20 which has a different boundary. Out of 13 cents in S.No.60/20, the farm lands and roads were laid. The extent of 17 cents in the boundary given in the sale deed dated 30.12.1987 is not omitted and it will not represent the suit property and the suit property is situated in different survey number in S.No. 57/4. The defendants and his predecessors have perfected their titled by long, continuous and uninterrupted enjoyment of the suit
8/18
S.A.Nos. 461 & 469 of 2012
property. Hence the suit should be dismissed.
" 1.thjp nfhUtJnghy; tHf;Fr; brhj;jpidg; bghWj;J tpsk;g[if ghpfhuKk;/ mjid bjhlh;e;J epue;ju cWj;Jf;fl;lis ghpfhuKk; thjpf;F fpilf;fj;jf;fjh>
3.jug;gpdh;fSf;F fpilf;ff;Toa ,ju ghpfhuk; vd;d;> "
9/18
S.A.Nos. 461 & 469 of 2012
common substantial questions of law are framed:
d) Whether the findings of both the Courts below can be termed as perverse due to improper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence? ”
that the suits have not been filed clearly. The description of the property
10/18
S.A.Nos. 461 & 469 of 2012
dose not have clear boundaries which has no relevance to the issues raised in these suits. The survey number in S.No.60/20 comprises 17 cents, but the plaintiff has pleaded that it is only 13 cents. The plaintiff's title deed Ex.A1 itself would show an extent of 17 cents with specific boundaries, but it does not tally with the description of the property shown in the plaint. The First Appellate Court has also made an observation in its judgement that the plaintiff had executed a general power of attorney in favour of one Prakash through Ex.A13 dated 12.09.2001 in which, the description of the property is shown with the similar boundaries but with different survey number in S.No.57/4. That would only show that the plaintiff has got rights only in survey number in S.No.57/4 and not in S.No.60/20 which was purchased by the defendants. The defendants' documents Ex.B2 and Ex.B9 which are pattas for the suit property standing in the name of the defendants have not been considered by the Courts below. The plaintiff has got no clarity as to the property for which he is seeking the relief of declaration, as he has improperly described the property and the suit schedule without any boundaries and the power of attorney document Ex.A13 also has a different survey number but with the same boundaries in Ex.A1.
11/18
S.A.Nos. 461 & 469 of 2012
12/18
S.A.Nos. 461 & 469 of 2012
claiming title in respect of S.No.60/20. The plaintiff’s predecessor in title Munusamy had the patta for the property in S.No.60/20 in Patta No.447 which has been subsequently converted in the name of the plaintiff in Patta No.544.
13/18
S.A.Nos. 461 & 469 of 2012
property and stated in his report that the property has been identified by the parties and he had also given the boundary details for the property. In his report it is seen that there are some make belief arrangements made in the suit property in order to show that it has been planted with saplings and bordered with pillars fixed on the ground. For the reasons best known to the defendants they did not chose to mark the Commissioner’s report, through the Commissioner has been appointed at their instance. In the property details of the plaintiff’s predecessor in title, the difference in the patta number, cannot make a better case for the defendant in respect of his right over the suit property.
14/18
S.A.Nos. 461 & 469 of 2012
he had purchased 13 cents in S.No.60/20.
to an inevitable conclusion that the defendants’ predecessor had actually purchased an extent of 19 cents in S.No.60/30 but later executed sale deed in favour of P.W.2 (Ex.B7). Though the plaintiff did not come with specific boundaries he had proved a better title than the defendants as he could
15/18
S.A.Nos. 461 & 469 of 2012
produce patta in favour of his predecessor in title. His sale deed Ex.A1 also tallies with S.No.60/20 and the extent of 13 cents. S.No.60/20 has been subdivided and the field map is available to identify the location of S.No.60/20 and that it measures only 13 cents. In fact that forms part of the Commissioner’s report which was not marked by the defendants.
not S.No. 57/4 as stated in the substantial question of law, that will not go in
favour of the appellant.
16/18
S.A.Nos. 461 & 469 of 2012
patta standing in the name of the predecessor of the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s title deed and also the Commissioner’s report, in arriving at the conclusion that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff, I do not find any factual or legal infirmity. As the trial Court had adopted the principle of preponderance of probabilities as the standard proof for decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff, the substantial questions of laws are answered against the appellant.
18.12.2025
Index:Yes/No Speaking Order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation Case : Yes / No bkn
17/18
S.A.Nos. 461 & 469 of 2012
R.N.MANJULA, J.
bkn
To:
S.A. Nos.461 & 469 of 2012
18.12.2024
18/18
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff proved better title to the suit property in S.No.60/20 despite the plaint lacking boundary details.
Whether Ex.A1 related to S.No.57/4 rather than S.No.60/20, undermining plaintiff's title claim.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Malli's Resorts (P) Ltd., Rep. By its Managing Director A.V.Vinod Kumar Reddy
L.Leela rep. By her Power Agent Mr.M.B.Prakash
V.Ganesan
Silviya Sharma
Minor Prem
Minor Nithra
R.N.Manjula
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
