Dismissed¶157

Kailasam Ammal (Died) v. a.K.C.Balasubramanian (Died)

Madras HC29 Jan 2025SA/2127/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second appeal dismissed - title to 'B' schedule property - chain of sale deeds Ex.A3 (06.06.1918), Ex.A4 (22.06.1955), Ex.A5 (11.05.1968), Ex.A6 (02.09.1993) - erroneous western boundary recital in Ex.A4 - vendor conveyed entire property, nothing remaining for subsequent vendor - plaint plea of possession/adverse possession unproved - First Appellate Court's reversal held sustainable - substantial question of law answered - Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure - Madurai Bench of Madras High Court - S.A.No.2127 of 2002 - respondents absent, amicus curiae appointed - no costs.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellants; the Second Appeal failed and was dismissed with no costs, leaving the First Appellate Court's judgment and decree intact. ¶157

Kailasam Ammal (Died) Vs a.K.C.Balasubramanian (Died) — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellants; the Second Appeal failed and was dismissed with no costs, leaving the First Appellate Court's judgment and decree intact.

¶157

Issue for consideration

Substantial question of law: Whether the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are sustainable in law as they have not considered the entire evidence to decide the issue and the relevant provisions of law applicable to the facts of the case. +2 more

¶91

Court's answer

The judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court is sustainable in law; the substantial question of law is answered accordingly.

¶156

Ratio / Principle

The western boundary description in Ex.A4 sale deed dated 22.06.1955 is wrong, because Lakshmiammal had sold the entire property she purchased from Kamatchi Ammal and therefore had no property on the western side.

¶139

Key takeaways

Rathinammal sold the entire property purchased from Lakshmiammal to Kailasammal under Ex.A5 dated 11.05.1968; consequently her son Pitchai Chettiar had no property left to convey to the 2nd plaintiff Shanmugam under Ex.A6 dated 02.09.1993 pertaining to 'A' schedule.ratio¶140
The plaint allegation that after the death of Lakshmi Ammal, Rathinammal took possession of 'A' schedule property for her share from Akkandi Chettiar Vaikara is not supported by any evidence; plaint para 13 is not proved.ratio¶145
The First Appellate Court rightly concluded, taking note of the property description in the sale deed, that the plaintiffs purchased 'A' schedule property alone and not 'B' schedule property.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second Appeal S.A.No.2127 of 2002 (Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, V.Sivagnanam J., pronounced 29.01.2025) under Section 100 CPC against the judgment of the Principal Subordinate Court, Trichy in A.S.No.537 of 1999 (25.01.2002), which had reversed the decree of the District Munsif, Musiri in O.S.No.5 of 1994 declaring the 1st plaintiff owner of suit 'B' schedule property and directing removal of the 'C' schedule construction. Holding: (i) the western boundary recital in Ex.A4 sale deed dated 22.06.1955 is wrong, the vendor having already sold the entire property purchased from Kamatchi Ammal; (ii) Rathinammal having conveyed the whole property to the 1st plaintiff under Ex.A5 dated 11.05.1968, her son Pitchai Chettiar had nothing left to sell to the 2nd plaintiff under Ex.A6 dated 02.09.1993; (iii) the plaint allegation of possession of 'A' schedule by Rathinammal (para 13) was unsupported and unproved. Consequently the plaintiffs failed to prove title to 'B' schedule property; the First Appellate Court's reversal was held sustainable and the substantial question of law answered accordingly. Result: Second Appeal dismissed, no costs. Respondents did not appear despite notice; Mr.Narmadhan, Advocate, assisted the Court as amicus curiae.