Second appeal by plaintiff's legal heirs against reversal of declaration and injunction over two survey items purchased in 1978. Plaintiff produced no proof that his vendor had title; patta for second item issued only in 2004-05 without notice. First appellate court's finding upheld; appeal dismissed.
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.794 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 15.06.2024
PRONOUNCED ON : 22.07.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
S.A.No.794 of 2011
Vs.
1/14
S.A.No.794 of 2011
Prayer :- Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC against
the Judgement and Decree of the Principal District Court, Villupuram dated 31.03.2011 passed in A.S.No.125 of 2010 partly reversing the judgement and decree of the II Additional District Munsif, Ulundurpet dated 27.03.2010 in O.S.No.277 of 2007.
For Appellants : Mr. P. Rajarajan For Respondents : Mr. R. Meenal
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgement and Decree dated 31.03.2011 passed in A.S.No.125 of 2010 on the file of Principal District Court, Villupuram, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 27.03.2010 passed in O.S.No.277 of 2007 on the file of II Additional District Munsif Court, Ulundurpet.
2/14
S.A.No.794 of 2011
properties from one Mahalingam for a sale consideration of Rs. 1100/- by a registered sale deed dated 23.6.1978. After purchase, he got mutation of patta bearing No.211 in his name and also got Chitta and Adangal in his name and he is in enjoyment of the same for more than 29 years and thus he has got prescribed title by adverse possession also. The defendants are having their property near the suit schedule properties. Taking advantage of the same, they had attempted to disturb the plaintiff's peaceful possession on 27.8.2007 and the same was prevented by the plaintiff. As the defendants are influenced persons, they may interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff at any time. Hence, the suit.
S.A.No.794 of 2011
defendant has got his own property to the eastern side of the 2nd item of the suit schedule property. The plaint 2nd item of the suit schedule property was found to be ridge pit for about 40 years and the first defendant levelled the land by spending around Rs.5000 /- and cultivated by joining the 2nd item of the property along with the his property. In the year 1983 the Government has also issued patta No.732 in his name in respect of the 2nd item of the suit schedule property. Subsequently, the 1st defendant has been paying kist and also planted coconut trees and enjoying the same for about 25 years. Therefore the first defendant is having prescribed title by adverse possession also. The 1st item of the suit property, which is situated in the western side of the 2nd item of schedule property is being used by the public as a common pathway. Therefore the plaintiff or his predecessor in title never enjoyed the suit schedule property at any point of time. When the first defendant obtained chitta on 11.07.2008, he came to know that the patta stood in the name of the first defendant was changed without notice to the defendants and thus, it is not legally sustainable. As on date, the 2nd item of the suit schedule property is in the possession and enjoyment of the first defendant. The sale deed got by the plaintiff is a void one and as the 2nd item of the property belonged to Government, the said sale deed is not legally sustainable. As the 1st item of the property is a common lane and 2nd item of the suit property is in possession and enjoyment of the first https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/14
S.A.No.794 of 2011
defendant for a long period, the plaintiff is not entitled for any decree as prayed
for and the suit has to be dismissed with costs.
the following issues were framed by the trial Court for consideration:
examined himself as P.W.1 and one Sharankabani was examined as P.W.2 and 5 documents have been marked as Ex.Al to Ex.A5 . On the side of defendants, the first defendant examined himself as DW1, one Kesavan was examined as DW2 and one Thirumavalavan(VAO) was examined as DW3 and 4 documents have been marked as Ex.B1 to B4. Ex.X1 to Ex.X5 were also marked.
5/14
S.A.No.794 of 2011
the respective parties and the submissions made, the Trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for by a judgment and decree dated 27.03.2010. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants had preferred an appeal in A.S.No.125 of 2010 before the Principal District Court, Villupuram. The First Appellate Court, after considering the entire materials, vide judgment and decree dated 31.03.2011, partly allowed the appeal and set aside the declaration and consequential permanent injunction granted in favour of the plaintiff in respect of 2nd item of the suit schedule property and confirmed the declaration and injunction granted in respect of 1st item of the suit schedule property. Now, challenging the same, the present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.
question of law:
6/14
S.A.No.794 of 2011
2.
7/14
S.A.No.794 of 2011
grounds raised in the grounds of appeal and thus, pleaded to allow the appeal.
S.A.No.794 of 2011
rightly dismissed the suit for declaration and consequently permanent injunction in respect of 2nd item of the plaint schedule property. There is no ground for interference. No substantial question of law involved in this case and thus, pleaded to dismiss the second appeal.
properties from one Mahalingam on 23.06.1978 as per the sale deed Ex.A1. Admittedly, the plaintiff had not filed any documents to show that his vendor
9/14
S.A.No.794 of 2011
Mahalingam had title over the plaint schedule properties and during the cross
examination, he had admitted the same. His evidence runs as follows:-
“ kfhyp';fk; bgahpy; brhj;J ,Ue;J mth; mDgtpj;jjw;fhd Mjutpid ehd; jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy//// kfhyp';fk; brhj;ij fpuak; bra;jnghJ vt;tpjkhd K:yg; gj;jpuKk;. mth; mDgtpj;jjw;fhd Mjuitnah jutpy;iy/ mJ nghd;w Mtz';fis ehd; ghh;j;jJ ,y;iy/ **
that the plaintiff had admitted that his sale deed is not a valid one . His evidence runs as follows:-
** tHf;F 2tJ mapl;l brhj;jpw;F fpHf;F kw;Wk; bjw;F g[wj;jpYk; gpujpthjpfSf;F ghj;jpakhd fpua epy';fs; cz;L vd;why; rhpay;y. fpHf;F g[wk; kl;Lk; jhd; gpujpthjpapd; epyk; cs;sJ/ tl;lhl;rpah; mYtyfj;jpy; gl;lh khw;wk; rk;ke;jkhf gpujpthjpfis tprhhpj;jhh;fsh vd;gJ bjhpahJ/ ehd; kD bfhLj;j gpwF mse;J gl;lh bfhLj;jhh;fs;/ ntW Mtz';fs; vija[k; mth;fs; nfl;ft[k; ,y;iy/ ehDk; jutpy;iy/ chpikapy;yhj kfhyp';fj;jplkpUe;J ehd; bgw;w fpuaKk; bry;yj;jf;fjy;y vd;why; rhpjhd;/ **
10/14
S.A.No.794 of 2011
by any documents to prove his title over the plaint schedule properties. Specifically, there is no document to show that his vendor Mahalingam had title over the plaint schedule properties. In the absence of any evidence to show that the vendor Mahalingam had title over the plaint schedule properties, the plaintiff cannot get a declaration over the same. The defendants in their written statement disputed the plaintiff's claim over the 2nd item of the suit schedule property alone, but, not disputed the 1st item of the suit schedule property. The first defendant during the cross examination (DW1) deposed that he did not dispute the right of the plaintiff's in respect of the 1st item of the suit schedule property, which runs as follows :
** thjp Mdth; vd; bgahpy; 2 mapl;l brhj;J bghWj;J tHf;F
bra;Js;shh; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ ehd; Kjy; mapl;l brhj;ij bghWj;J
vdf;F vt;tpj chpika[k; ,y;iy vd;W brhd;dhy; rhpjhd;/
Therefore, the plaintiff's title with regard to the 2nd item of the suit property alone is disputed by the defendants. Further more, the defendants' enjoyment over the 2nd item of the suit schedule property is evidenced by the documents Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4 and Ex.X.4.
11/14
S.A.No.794 of 2011
S.A.No.794 of 2011
and the principles of law governing the same, had correctly decided the issues and the findings of the First Appellate Court is legally valid and I find no merit in this Appeal and the substantial questions of law formulated in the second appeal is, accordingly, answered against the plaintiff/appellant.
Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No mrp To
22.07.2024
2.The II Additional District Munsif, Ulundurpet.
13/14
S.A.No.794 of 2011
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
mrp
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in S.A.No.794 of 2011
22.07.2024
14/14
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the first appellate court was correct in dismissing the suit for declaration and injunction over the second item based on revenue records under the UDR scheme despite Exs.A1-A5 and X1-X5.
Whether title to the second item could be decided on revenue records alone rejecting the registered sale deed, patta and kist receipts.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Balasubramaniyan
Parvathi
Thirumeni
Thirugnanam
Veera Padayachi
Kasi Rajan
V. Sivagnanam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
