Dismissed

R.Sivaraman v. P.Sureshkumar

Madras HC1 Mar 2024SA/820/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a second appeal regarding a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction involving a dispute over the alienation of property. The court examined the sale chain and confirmed the lower court's decree awarding title to the plaintiff, dismissing the appellant's appeal.

What did the court decide?

The second appeal was dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions were closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

R.Sivaraman Vs P.Sureshkumar — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

S.A.No.820 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01.03.2024

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

¶6

S.A.No.820 of 2013 and

¶7

M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2013

¶8

R.Sivaraman S/o.Radhakrishnan

¶9

.. Appellant

¶10

vs.

¶11

P.Sureshkumar S/o.Ponnusamy

¶12

Athayammal W/o.Late Marappa Gounder

¶13

Nallasamy Gounder S/o.Pongianna Gounder

¶14

Ponnusamy S/o.Pongianna Gounder

¶15

Ponnammal W/o.Muthusamy Gounder

¶16

Maragatham W/o.Krishnamoorthi ..Respondents

¶17

Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC against the

¶18

judgment and decree dated 15.04.2013 made in A.S.No.51 of 2012 on the

¶19

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page Nos.1/8

¶20

S.A.No.820 of 2013

¶21

file of the Court of the Principal Subordinate Court, Erode, Erode District

¶22

confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2012 made in O.S.No.140 of 2009 on the file of the Court of I Additional District Munsif, Erode.

¶23

For Appellant : Mr.T.Dhanasekaran

¶24

For Respondents : Mr.M.Sidhardhan representing Mr.D.Gopal for R1

¶25

J U D G M E N T

¶26

The present Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree

¶27

dated 15.04.2013 made in A.S.No.51 of 2012 on the file of Court of Principal Subordinate Judge at Erode in confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2012 made in O.S.No.140 of 2009 on the file of the Court of I Additional District Munsif at Erode.

¶28

O.S.No.140 of 2009 is a suit which has been presented for

¶29

declaration of title and for permanent injunction.

¶30

For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their

¶31

ranks in the suit.

¶32

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶33

Page Nos.2/8

¶34

S.A.No.820 of 2013

¶35

The case of the plaintiff is that the property originally belonged

¶36

to one Sengoda Gounder. Sengoda Gounder had one son and one daughter namely, Shanmugam and Pappathi. Shanmugam had one son Saravanan. Shanmugam, Pappathi and Saravanan had alienated the property in favour of one Athayammal on 22.08.1973 under Ex.A1. On the very same day, they had alienated a portion of the property under Ex.A2 in favour of one Muthusamy. Athayammal and Muthusamy, who are the purchasers of the property, had in turn, alienated the property in favour of one Kannaiyan under Ex.A3 dated 02.12.1991. Kannaiyan in turn had sold the property to Indirani on 02.12.1991 itself through a power of attorney under Ex.A4. The plaintiff P.Suresh Kumar purchased the property on 01.06.2006 under Ex.A7. As he faced interference, he filed the suit.

¶37

It is the case of the defendants that Athayammal and Muthusamy

¶38

did not alienate the suit property in favour of Kannaiyan but had sold the acquisitions other than S.No.165/1A which corresponds to S.No.130/B3. According to them, Athayammal and Muthusamy had alienated the property in their favour on 29.03.2007 and therefore, they have become

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page Nos.3/8

¶40

S.A.No.820 of 2013

¶41

the owners of the property.

¶42

The defendants pleaded that on the basis of the documents

¶43

which were produced during the time of trial, the said Muthusamy and Athayammal, had in fact, alienated S.No.130/B3 in favour of Kannaiyan and had not retained any interest in and over the property. Therefore, according to them, the plaintiff having not purchased the property is not entitled to claim the relief of declaration of title and for injunction.

¶44

The trial Court framed the following issues:

¶45

chpikahsuh>

¶46

kw;Wk; epue;ju cWj;Jf;fl;lis ghpfhuk; bgw mUfija[ilatuh>

¶47

Before the trial Court, on the side of plaintiff, he examined

¶48

himself as sole witness (P.W.1) and on the side of the defendant, the sixth defendant Sivaraman examined himself as D.W.1. On the side of the

¶49

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page Nos.4/8

¶50

S.A.No.820 of 2013

¶51

plaintiff, the title documents relating to the property were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. The revenue records were produced under Ex.A5, A6, A8 and A10. In order to show that the vendors of the sixth defendant namely, defendants 1 to 5 had attempted to assert their right over the property, they filed a suit in O.S.No.355 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Erode and the same had been dismissed, the plaintiff produced Ex.A11 and Ex.A12. On the side of the defendants, they produced Ex.B1 to Ex.B7.

¶52

On consideration of the documents filed before the Court, the learned trial Judge came to a conclusion that the suit schedule mentioned property had been alienated by Athayammal and Muthusamy in favour of Kannaiyan, who had in turn sold the property to Indirani, the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiff and came to a conclusion that the defendants having purchased the property subsequently on 29.03.2007 have no right and interest over the property and thereby decreed the suit.

¶53

The said decree was carried by appeal by the sixth defendant alone. The learned Appellate Judge confirmed the decree, against which,

¶54

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶55

Page Nos.5/8

¶56

S.A.No.820 of 2013

¶57

the present second appeal has been filed before this Court.

¶58

The Second Appeal was not admitted by this Court but notice regarding admission had been ordered on 25.07.2013. On service of notice, Mr.D.Gopal, learned counsel has entered appearance.

¶59

Today, I heard Mr.T.Dhanasekaran, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.M.Sidhardhan, learned counsel for the first respondent.

¶60

Mr.T.Dhanasekaran, learned counsel would argue that when Athayammal and Muthusamy had not alienated the suit schedule property in favour of Kannayan, Kannayan could not have transferred the title in favour of Indirani and thereby, the plaintiff does not have any right, title or interest over the same.

¶61

In order to convince myself on whether there has been alienation on the same, I looked into the sale deed dated 02.12.1991 namely, sale deed executed by Muthusamy, Athayammal and Maragatham in favour of Kannaiyan. In the schedule of property, it is specifically given that S.No.130/3B to an extent of 0.42 cents had been

¶62

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶63

Page Nos.6/8

¶64

S.A.No.820 of 2013

¶65

alienated by them in favour of Kannaiyan. It is not the case of the defendants that Athayammal and Muthusamy had some more property in the said survey numbers for them to execute the sale deed on 29.03.2007. The properties having been sold by them, they did not have the title for the said property to transfer the same in favour of the defendants on the aforesaid dates.

¶66

Hence, I do not find any error or illegality or perversity in the judgement and decree in A.S.No.51 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court at Erode dated 15.04.2013. The judgment and decree of the Principal Subordinate Judge in A.S.No.51 of 2012 dated 15.04.2013 in confirming the judgment and decree of the I Additional District Court at Erode in O.S.No.140 of 2009 dated 20.03.2012 stands confirmed.

¶67

Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶68

01.03.2024

¶69

Index:Yes/No Neutral Citation:Yes/No Speaking Order / Non-speaking order mk

¶70

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶71

Page Nos.7/8

¶72

S.A.No.820 of 2013

¶73

V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.,

¶74

¶75

¶76

The Principal Subordinate Judge, Principal Subordinate Court, Erode District.

¶77

I Additional District Munsif I Additional District Munsif Court, Erode.

¶78

S.A.No.820 of 2013

¶79

01.03.2024

¶80

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page Nos.8/8

R.Sivaraman v. P.Sureshkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Sivaraman v. P.Sureshkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M.Abdul Gani Vs E. Mohammed Rafiq (Deceased), 1.TIRUTTANI Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.

R.Dakshina Moorthy Vs P.S.R.Srinivasan

S.Rajendran Vs T.S.Sruthi Giridharan

Muthusamy Vs Palniappan

Vasantha Vs Latha

K.Selvam Vs R.S.Kulandaivelu