Dismissed¶62

M.Dhanapal v. Kannan

Madras HC24 Jan 2025SA/49/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; second appeal S.A.No.49 of 2025; Section 100 Civil Procedure Code; declaration and injunction suit; immovable property title dispute; survey number discrepancy S.F.No. 164/3A vs 164/3B; Exhibit A-1 sale deed dated 12-07-2007; Exhibit A-2 dated 05-02-1986; Exhibit A-3; Exhibit B-2 sale deed dated 04-04-1950; Exhibit B-4; four-boundary identification failure; vendor without right or title; purchaser-name confusion Govindan vs Govinda Gounder; concurrent findings of trial and appellate courts upheld; Kallakurichi courts; appeal dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

This second appeal, challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below, is dismissed. ¶62

M.Dhanapal Vs Kannan — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶62

Issue for consideration

Whether the plaintiff/appellants proved right and title over the suit property, given the survey-number discrepancy (suit property in S.F.No. 164/3A per Exhibit A-3; defendants' property under Exhibit B-2 in S.F.No. 164/3B), the absence of boundary particulars in Exhibit A-1, and the similar purchaser names (Govindan under Exhibit A-2 vs Govinda Gounder under Exhibit B-2). +1 more

¶40

Ratio / Principle

This second appeal, challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below, is dismissed.

¶62

Key takeaways

The connected miscellaneous petition (CMP.No.1321 of 2025) is closed and there shall be no order as to costs.ratio¶63

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (T.V. Thamilselvi J., 24.01.2025): Second Appeal No.49 of 2025 (with connected CMP.No.1321 of 2025), filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2021 in A.S.No.93 of 2019 (Additional Subordinate Court, Kallakurichi) confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2019 in O.S.No.116 of 2014 (I Additional District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi), is DISMISSED. The plaintiff had sought declaration and injunction over 20 cents in Survey No.164/3, Nallandhur village, claiming through Exhibit A-1 (sale deed dated 12-07-2007) and tracing title via Exhibits A-2 (05-02-1986) and A-3; the defendants traced an earlier purchase through Exhibit B-2 (sale deed dated 04-04-1950) with four boundaries and relied additionally on Exhibit B-4. Both courts concurrently found the plaintiff had failed to identify the property with four proper boundaries and that his vendor had no title, while the defendants proved prior purchase and continuous possession. Appellants' grounds included the S.F.No.164/3A versus 164/3B discrepancy, the absence of boundary particulars in Exhibit A-1, and confusion between the purchaser names Govindan and Govinda Gounder. The appeal was dismissed without disturbing the concurrent findings; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed and no order was made as to costs.

¶1

S.A. No.49 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 24.01.2025

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

S.A.No.49 of 2025

and

CMP.No.1321 of 2025

M.Dhanapal (Died)

2.D.Latha

3.D.Sasikala

4.D.Sarmila

...Appellants

(Sole appellant died, appellants 2 to 4 are brought on record as lrs of the deceased sole appellant vide Court order dated 20.11.024 made in CMP.Nos.21576 and 21577 of 2024 in CMP.No.24578 of 2023 in SA.SR.No.109045 of 2023 (TVTSJ).

¶14

¶15

1.Kannan (Died)

¶16

2.Venkadesan

¶17

3.Ammeni

¶18

4.Lakshmi

¶19

5.Rajendran

¶20

... Respondents

¶21

R1 Died, RR3 to 5 brought on record as LRs of deceased R1 vide order of Court dated 29.02.2024 made in CMP.No.29130 of 2023 in SA.SR.No.109045 of 2023 (PTAJ).

¶22

1\8

¶23

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

¶24

S.A. No.49 of 2025

¶25

PRAYER : Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and decree dated 15.11.2021 made in A.S.No.93 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Kallakurichi confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2019 made in O.S.No.116 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi.

¶26

For Appellants : M/s.M.Adhishree For Respondents : Mrs. R.Meenal

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

The appellant has filed this appeal to set aside the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2021 made in A.S.No.93 of 2019 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Kallakurichi confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.08.2019 made in O.S.No.116 of 2014 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi.

¶29

For a sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were ranked in the suit.

¶30

2\8

¶31

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

¶32

S.A. No.49 of 2025 3. Challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below, the

¶33

plaintiff preferred this appeal. Before the trial court, he filed a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of the suit property, which was described in the schedule as 20 cents in Survey No. 164/3 in Nallandhur village, Kallakurichi Vattam, Villupuram. The plaintiff based his claim on a purchase made through Exhibit A-1, a sale deed dated 12-07-2007. However, the first defendant contended that his father had purchased the property much earlier, through Exhibit B-2, a sale deed dated 04-04-1950, which clearly described the property with four boundaries.

¶34

The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff

¶35

had failed to properly identify the property with four boundaries and that his vendor had no right or title to convey the property to him. The trial court relied on the evidence of PW-1, as extracted in Paragraphs 11, 12, and 13 of its findings. Consequently, the court held that the plaintiff had not proven his right and title over the suit property. It also noted that the defendants had established their claim by proving their prior purchase of the property and their continuous possession of it. Dissatisfied with this decision, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S. No. 93 of 2019. However, the appellate court upheld

¶36

3\8

¶37

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

¶38

S.A. No.49 of 2025 the trial court's findings and dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court’s decision.

¶39

Challenging these concurrent findings, the learned counsel for the appellants submit that, despite the documentary evidence, both courts erroneously dismissed the suit without proper appreciation of the facts. He relies on the following grounds:

¶40

(i) It is submitted that the suit property, measuring 20 cents, is comprised in S.F.No. 164/3A, whereas the property purchased under Exhibit B-2, measuring 23 cents, is comprised in S.F.No. 164/3B. The courts below dismissed the suit without properly identifying the respective boundaries and resurvey numbers.

¶41

(ii) It is submitted that the courts below confused the name of the purchaser Govindan under Exhibit A-2 (dated 05-02-1986) with that of Govinda Gounder under Exhibit B-2 (dated 04-04-1950). This similarity in names led to confusion and, ultimately, the erroneous dismissal of the suit.

¶42

(iii) It is submitted that Exhibit A-3 describes the suit property as S.F.No. 164/3A with four boundaries. Similar details are also available in 4\8

¶43

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

¶44

S.A. No.49 of 2025 Exhibit A-2. However, when the plaintiff purchased the property under

¶45

Exhibit A-1 by tracing his vendor’s title through Exhibits A-2 and A-3, the boundary particulars of the suit property were not mentioned.

¶46

(iv) It is submitted that Exhibit A-1 aligns with Exhibits A-2 and A-3.

¶47

Since the prior title deeds explicitly mention S.F.No. 164/3A with four boundaries, the absence of such details in Exhibit A-1 should not impact the plaintiff’s title.

¶48

(v) It is submitted that, in order to prove Exhibit A-3, the plaintiff examined PW-2. The evidence of both PW-1 and PW-2 was not discredited

¶49

in cross-examination.

¶50

In reply, the learned counsel appearing for the

¶51

respondents/defendant submits that the suit was filed by the plaintiff without specifying the four boundaries of the property, even though his vendor had clearly mentioned them. No explanation was provided as to why the plaintiff purchased the property without a proper boundary description.

¶52

It is contended that Exhibit A-2, the sale deed belonging to the plaintiff's vendor, clearly describes the property with four boundaries. This

¶53

5\8

¶54

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

¶55

S.A. No.49 of 2025 fact is also recorded in Paragraph 12 on Page 7 of the trial court's judgment. Therefore, the plaintiff’s claim over the property, without specifying the boundary particulars, was rightly rejected by the courts below. Since the plaintiff sought a declaration, he has bound to prove his right and title over the property, including with proper boundary details. However, he failed to do so. The trial court’s findings on this aspect are legally sound and require no interference.

¶56

Moreover, the defendants purchased the property through Exhibit B-2, which clearly describes the property with four boundaries. The defendants also relied on Exhibit B-4 to establish that the first defendant, along with his brother, had sold a portion of the property to the second defendant. Additionally, the defendants proved their continuous enjoyment and possession of the property.

¶57