Second Appeal challenging findings on title in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The High Court found no perversity in lower courts' acceptance of plaintiff's title via sale deeds and rejection of defendant's unproven oral partition claim.
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.686 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.04.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
S.A.No.686 of 2010 and
M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2010
(Appellants 7 & 8 were represented by their mother Velvizhi)
... Appellants
(Appellants 2 to 8 were brought on record as LRs of deceased sole appellant vide order dated 27.11.2023 in C.M.P.Nos.9152, 9154 & 9155 of 2023 in S.A.No.686 of 2010)
Vs.
Dhiravidaselvi
...Respondent
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2009 passed in A.S.No.128 of 2007 by the learned Additional Sub Judge, Vridhachalam,
Page 1 of 10
S.A.No.686 of 2010
partly allowing the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2007 passed in O.S.No.473 of 1990 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Vridhachalam.
For Appellants : Mr.K.Shakespeare For Respondent : Mr.L.Palanimuthu
JUDGMENT
The first appellant herein is the first defendant before the trial
Court. The respondent herein is the plaintiff before the trial Court. After
the demise of the first appellant, his legal heirs were impleaded as appellants 2 to 8 vide order dated 27.11.2023 in C.M.P.Nos.9152, 9154 & 9155 of 2023 .
according to their litigative status as before the trial Court.
Second appeal is as follows:
According to the plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to one Krishnasamy and one Paramanandham. From them, the plaintiff had
purchased under two different sale deeds both dated 05.05.1980. It is further submitted by the plaintiff that he has been raising various crops in
Page 2 of 10
S.A.No.686 of 2010
the suit property and also has been paying kist and other statutory dues. It is the submission of the plaintiff that, since the first defendant's request to purchase the suit property was refused, the defendants got annoyed and started interfering with the possession of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
subsequently, he remained ex parte.
Page 3 of 10
S.A.No.686 of 2010
S.A.No.686 of 2010
which are the revenue records in favour of the first defendant, which would amply establish that the first defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is also the case of the learned counsel for the appellants that, their names have been entered in the revenue records based upon the oral partition, that had taken place during 1964. Learned counsel for the appellants would further strenuously submit that, though the respondent relied upon Exs.A2 and A3, such document does not disclose the tracing of title. Therefore, contended that by virtue of a mere sale deed, both Courts ought not to have declared the title in favour of the plaintiff.
Page 5 of 10
S.A.No.686 of 2010
it is the contention of the first defendant that the suit item 1 and 2 was
alloted to him in the year 1964. However, there is no proof submitted by the first defendant. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent that, PW3 has categorically stated that for the sale of Exs.A2 and A3, the first defendant was instrumental and made all arrangements,
and it is also the contention of the plaintiff that after knowing the contents of Exs.A2 and A3, the first defendant has attested the document. Therefore, the first defendant, after the lapse of a long year, cannot turn around and deny the ownership over Krishnasamy and Paramanandham, who are the brothers of the first defendant. Therefore, it is the submission of the plaintiff that findings recorded by both the Courts below are based on records, and that the same cannot be interfered under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, as there is no perversity in the same.
submissions made by both sides.
title over the suit property independently with them. According to the plaintiff, they set up a title, by virtue of sale deeds Exs.A2 and A3. The
Page 6 of 10
S.A.No.686 of 2010
Ex.A2 was executed by Paramanandham, and Ex.A3 was executed by Krishnasamy, in favour of the plaintiff. It is an admitted fact that Krishnasamy and Paramanandham are brothers to the first defendant. But, it is the case of the first defendant that the properties originally belonged to his father Ramasamy, and that there was an oral partition in the year 1964, and that the items 1 and 2 were dealt with by the Krishnasamy and Paramanandham in 1980. More pertinently, the first defendant was the attester to the said document.
Page 7 of 10
S.A.No.686 of 2010
the first defendant that he is the owner of the property by virtue of the oral partition, the revenue records which had been submitted by the first defendant has not substantiated his case.
Page 8 of 10
S.A.No.686 of 2010
does not find any perversity over the same. Apart from that, from the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants this Court could not find the involvement of any substantial question of law.
the judgment of both the Courts below. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
18.04.2024
Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking Neutral Citation : Yes / No ham
To
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
ham
Page 9 of 10
S.A.No.686 of 2010
S.A.No.686 of 2010
18.04.2024
Page 10 of 10
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Appellate Courts committed perversity in accepting the plaintiff's title based on sale deeds over the defendant's claim of oral partition?
Whether a substantial question of law arises in a Second Appeal under Section 100 CPC regarding conflicting evidence on title?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kannappan Vs. Pargunan and 9 othersReferred¶14
2000 (II) CTC 219
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Chinnadurai (Died)
Manjula
Latha
Palanisamy
Tamilselvi
Velvizhi
C.KUMARAPPAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
