Second appeal against concurrent findings dismissing the plaintiff's suit for declaration of title and injunction. The court held the vendor had only a fractional 1/6th share under an unexecuted preliminary partition decree and could convey no absolute title, and dismissed the second appeal while permitting an application for final decree.
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.785 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 02.02.2024
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
S.A.No.785 of 2013
Vs.
1/14
S.A.No.785 of 2013
the legal heir of the deceased R3)
... Respondents
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.19 of 2009 dated 09.03.2012 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Villupuram, confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.1303 of 1995 dated 28.02.2005 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Ulundurpet.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Krishnasamy For Respondents :Mr.T.Gandhi
JUDGMENT
This second appeal arises against the judgment and decree of the
court of Principal District Judge, Villupuram in A.S.No.19 of 2009 dated 09.03.2012 in confirming the judgment and decree of the court of learned
Principal District Munsif, Ulundurpet in O.S.No.1303 of 1995 dated 28.02.2005.
2/14
S.A.No.785 of 2013
their ranks in the suit.
Muniya Kounder presented O.S.No.1303 of 1995 seeking for declaration of
title and for injunction, based on the sale deed executed by one Chinnapillai
Ammal on 05.08.1983.
property of his vendor and he had purchased the same from her by way of a registered sale deed on 05.08.1983 for valuable sale consideration of Rs.2,500/-. Since the defendants attempted to interfere with his possession on
19.09.1995, he came forward with a suit for declaration of title and for
injunction.
3/14
S.A.No.785 of 2013
Chinnapillai Ammal did not have a right to transfer the absolute title in favour of the plaintiff. He further pleaded that the father of the first defendant viz., Muniya Kounder, son of Govinda kounder had executed the deed of settlement in his favour with respect to items 3 and 4 of the property on 15.09.1975 and on and from that date, he became the owner of the property.
Though he had become the owner, Chellammal and Muniya Kounder taking
advantage of the fact that the first defendant was still a minor started to
alienate the property. This constrained the first defendant to file O.S.No.625
of 1991 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tirukoilur for declaration
of title and for recovery of possession. In the said suit, after the parties had entered appearance, compromise talks had taken place and a compromise decree was passed on 08.06.1994. Items 3 and 4 in the said suit were allotted
to the first defendant herein(who was the plaintiff in the other suit). On the basis of the decree, he filed E.P.No.176 of 1995 and took delivery of items 3
and 4 on 30.08.1995.
4/14
S.A.No.785 of 2013
uhkhD$f;ft[z;lh;. KUfd;. kw;Wk; ghh;tjp Mfpnahh;fSf;Fg; ghj;jpakhdjh>
2/ thjp ngUf;F 05/08/01983k; njjpapy; Vw;gl;l fpuak; cz;ikahdjh>
3/ tHf;F 3.4 mapl;lr; brhj;Jf;fs; 1.2.5 gpujpthjpfs; kw;Wk; ghg;gh mk;khs; MfpnahUf;Fg; ghj;jpakhdjh>
kw;Wk; epue;ju cWj;Jf;fl;lis ghpfhuk; bgw chpik cilatuh>
side of the plaintiff as PW1 and PW2 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 were marked and
on the side of the defendants,t the fourth defendant examined himself as
DW1 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B3 were marked.
5/14
S.A.No.785 of 2013
matter before it, dismissed the suit. Against the said judgment and decree, an
appeal was preferred in A.S.No.19 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal
District Munsif, Villupuram. The learned judge on 09.03.2012 dismissed the appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial court. Hence, this
second appeal.
questions of law on 11.03.2014:
“1.Whether the courts below are correct in
dismissing the case of the plaintiff in its entirety even though the defendants disputed the title of the plaintiffs only with respect of items 3 and 4 of the suit properties while the plaintiff has filed the suit with respect of 4 items of the suit properties?
2. Whether the compromise decree in
O.S.No.625 of 1991 will operate as resjudicata against the
case of the plaintiff whe the said suit was not decided on
6/14
S.A.No.785 of 2013
merit and when the plaintiff was not a party in the said compromise decree as he was already set ex parte?”
for the respondents.
considered the arguments.
Ammal is the owner of the property. Therefore, unless and until, the plaintiff proves that Chinnapillai Ammal has the absolute title to the property, he cannot claim any right by virtue of the sale deed dated 05.08.1993. The records reveal that Chinnapillai Ammal herself filed a suit for partition as in forma pauperis in O.P.No.2 of 1978, which was subsequently numbered as
O.S.No.149 of 1978 on the file of the learned District Munsif at Thirukoilur.
She had claimed 1/3rd share in the property. However, the court was pleased
7/14
S.A.No.785 of 2013
to declare 1/6th share to the said Chinnapillai Ammal. Chinnapillai Ammal seems to have been contended, after having obtained the preliminary decree. She did not take any further steps to get the preliminary decree to convert into an executable decree by filing an application for final decree. Unless and
until, the final decree is passed, the plaintiff in the suit for partition cannot get an executable decree. Since no final decree was passed, she did not seem to
have filed any execution petition.
is her right under the decree which is to file an application for final decree. The final decree not having been passed, it would always be open to the plaintiff to file an application in O.S.149 of 1978 on the file of the learned
8/14
S.A.No.785 of 2013
District Munsif and claim allotment of the shares in the property in terms of the preliminary decree. That not having been filed, the present suit for declaration of title necessarily will have to fail.
right in the property and her right was only a fractional share of 1/6th as declared in the previous suit. Apart from that, on the basis of the decree in O.S.No.625 of 1991 filed by the first defendant herein for declaration of title
and for recovery of possession, he had filed an execution petition and had also taken delivery of the same. In fact in those proceedings, the present plaintiff was impleaded as a defendant and he attempted to set aside the
decree, which ended in a dismissal and was confirmed till the High Court.
an application for final decree and seek for allotment of shares. On the basis
of the sale deed dated 05.08.1983, he is not entitled for declaration of title as
9/14
S.A.No.785 of 2013
his vendor do not have any absolute right to the property.
come to a conclusion that the plaintiff has not proved his absolute title to the
property. The factum that the defendant had made a claim only with respect
to four items and not with respect to the remaining, does not mean the plaintiff in this suit would automatically be entitled for declaration of title.
Even the defendants were remained exparte, the plaintiff still has to prove his
title to the suit property. That not having been done in the present case, I am
not in a position to come to the rescue of the plaintiff.
on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram dated 09.03.2012 in confirming the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Munsif, Ulundurpet in O.s.No.1303 of 1995 dated 28.02.2005 is
confirmed. The second appeal is dismissed.
10/14
S.A.No.785 of 2013
prevent the plaintiff or his legal heirs to move an application for passing of final decree in O.S.No.149 of 1978 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tirukoilur. It is settled position, nonetheless I am reiterating that the suit for partition is deemed to be pending till the final decree is passed. The plaintiff, having purchased from Chinnapillai Ammal by way of a sale deed dated 05.08.1983, will always be entitled to move an application for a final decree,
but is not entitled to claim absolute title on the basis of the present suit for partition. Accordingly, the appellants who are the legal heirs of the plaintiff is at liberty to file an application for a final decree. No costs.
02.02.2024
nl
Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order
11/14
S.A.No.785 of 2013
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
To
12/14
S.A.No.785 of 2013
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
nl
S.A.No.785 of 2013
13/14
S.A.No.785 of 2013
02.02.2024
14/14
2 issues framed by the court
Did the plaintiff prove absolute title to the suit properties based on the sale deed from a vendor holding only a preliminary-decree share?
Does the compromise decree in O.S.No.625 of 1991 operate as res judicata when the plaintiff was set ex parte?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Palaniammal
Arul
Jayachandiran
Jayakumar
Ramesh
Narayanan @ Settu
V.Lakshminarayanan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
