Second appeal against concurrent decrees granting the plaintiff declaration of title and permanent injunction over half a cent of land. The court held both courts below rightly found the defendant failed to prove his claim that the whole land fell to Krishnamoorthy's share; plaintiff established title and possession through registered sale deed and patta.
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.735 of 2019 & C.M.P. No.14042 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.12.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA S.A.No.735 of 2019 and C.M.P. No.14042 of 2019
K. Ramu ...Appellant
Vs.
Selvamani ... Respondent
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908 against the decree and judgment dated 06.02.2018 passed in A.S. No.56 of 2017, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ulundurpet, upholding the decree and judgment dated 17.12.2015 passed in O.S.No.145 of 2009, on the file of the I Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Ulundurpet.
For Appellant : Mr.T.R.Sathiya Mohan For Respondent : Ms. R. Poornima
Page 1 of 10
S.A.No.735 of 2019 & C.M.P. No.14042 of 2019
JUDGMENT
The appellant is the defendant in the suit in O.S.No.145/2009 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Ulundurpet. The respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit for declaration of her title to the suit property and for a permanent injunction restraining the appellant/defendant from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit property has been described in the plaint as a land in survey number 128/9 of Odaiyanandal village, Thirunavalur Taluk, Cuddalore District, measuring 1/2 cent within the boundaries stated in the plaint schedule.
Page 2 of 10
S.A.No.735 of 2019 & C.M.P. No.14042 of 2019
3.The case of the plaintiff in a nutshell is as follows :
3.1. The suit property is the self acquired property of one
Sundaramoorthy. Sundaramoorthy and his brother Krishnamoorthy partitioned their family properties in the presence of elders in the village during the year 1985. As per the oral partition, one cent of land in survey number 128/9 was partitioned equally between the two brothers.
3.2. The plaintiff purchased 1/2 cent of land (suit property) from Sundaramoorthy through a registered sale deed dated 29.11.1996 (Ex.A1) and ever since the date of purchase the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. However the defendant is attempting to trespass into the suit property and one such attempt was made on 15.04.2009. The defendant is also attempting to alienate the property in favour of third parties. Hence the suit.
4.The suit was resisted by the defendant on the following
grounds:
Page 3 of 10
S.A.No.735 of 2019 & C.M.P. No.14042 of 2019
the following issues :
Page 4 of 10
property?
S.A.No.735 of 2019 & C.M.P. No.14042 of 2019
iii. Whether the defendant is enjoying the suit property for more than
twenty years as alleged in the written statement?
iv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for?
6. In the trial Court, the plaintiff examined herself and one
another witness and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6. The defendant examined
himself and one another witness and marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B4.
documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, vide her decree and judgment dated 17.12.2015, on the following grounds:-
ii. It is not also disputed that Sundaramoorthy and Krishnamoorthy,
Page 5 of 10
S.A.No.735 of 2019 & C.M.P. No.14042 of 2019
who are the sons of Govindasamy, partitioned their family properties orally.
iii. Though the defendant had contended that the entire one cent of land was allotted to the share of Krishnamoorthy and that Sundaramoorthy was given some other property, he had not proved the same.
8.Aggrieved over the decree and judgment passed by the trial court, the defendant filed an appeal in A.S.No.56/2017, before the Subordinate Court, Ulundurpet. The learned Subordinate Judge, Ulundurpet, upheld the findings recorded by the trial court vide his decree and judgment dated 06.02.2018, as against which the present second appeal is filed.
Page 6 of 10
S.A.No.735 of 2019 & C.M.P. No.14042 of 2019
2. In keeping with the initial burden, is not the
plaintiff bound to prove her case by positive evidence on her side, rather than by reliance on the case of the defendant?
3. Whether both the courts below failed to hold that the burden of proof lies only on the plaintiff and not on the defendant?
4. Whether both the courts below are right in
holding that the defendant has failed to prove his case that only Mr.Krisnnamoorthy is the original owner of the suit schedule property?"
for the appellant Ms. R. Poornima, learned counsel for the respondent.
Page 7 of 10
S.A.No.735 of 2019 & C.M.P. No.14042 of 2019
S.A.No.735 of 2019 & C.M.P. No.14042 of 2019
held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree as prayed for by her and
the substantial questions of law are answered accordingly.
i. the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
ii. The decree and judgment dated 06.02.2018 passed in A.S. No.56 of 2017, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Ulundurpet, upholding the decree and judgment dated 17.12.2015 passed in O.S.No.145 of 2009, on the file of the I Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Ulundurpet, are upheld.
02.12.2024
Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking/Non-Speaking order bga
To
2. The I Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Ulundurpet 3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
Page 9 of 10
S.A.No.735 of 2019 & C.M.P. No.14042 of 2019
R. HEMALATHA, J.
bga
S.A.No.735 of 2019 and C.M.P. No.14042 of 2019
02.12.2024
Page 10 of 10
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the plaintiff proved her title and possession over the suit property, or whether the burden lay on the defendant to show the entire land was allotted to Krishnamoorthy in the oral partition.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K. Ramu
Selvamani
R. Hemalatha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
