Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 4035 (MAD)

Sakkubai v. Renu

2011-09-20

R.S.RAMANATHAN

body2011
Judgment :- 1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No.642 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gudiyatham, Vellore District, are the appellants. 2. The appellants/ plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration and injunction of their suit property. The case of the appellants/ plaintiffs was that though they purchased one acre of land in Survey No.11/1 under the sale deed dated 15.4.1968, they were given possession of an extent of 1.24 acres and from the date of sale they are in possession and enjoyment of the property and patta was also issued in their favour in respect of 1.24 acres which would also prove that they are in possession of the property. As the respondents attempted to trespass into their property, the suit was filed for declaration and for injunction. 3. The respondents contested the suit stating that the appellants are the owners of one acre of land and they cannot claim 1.24 acres and the appellants attempted to encroach upon the respondents' land and that was prevented and hence the suit was filed as if the appellants are the owners of the property. 4. Both the Courts have concurrently held that as per the sale deed Ex.A2, the appellants purchased only one acre of land and no document was produced by the appellants for having purchased 1.24 acres or no evidence adduced to prove that they are in possession and enjoyment of 1.24 acres from the date of purchase. Therefore, both the Courts dismissed the suit. 5. Mr. D.Rajagopal, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though the appellants purchased one acre of land, they have produced the kist receipts to prove their possession in respect of the entire extent of suit property and without considering the kist receipts both the Courts erroneously dismissed the suit. 6. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. Admittedly, the respondents purchased one acre of land under Ex.A2 and though they claimed that they were put in possession of 1.24 acres of land by their vendor, no evidence was adduced by the appellants to prove the same. Further, the kist receipts will not prove the possession of 1.24 acres of land by the appellants. Admittedly, the respondents purchased one acre of land under Ex.A2 and though they claimed that they were put in possession of 1.24 acres of land by their vendor, no evidence was adduced by the appellants to prove the same. Further, the kist receipts will not prove the possession of 1.24 acres of land by the appellants. Admittedly the appellants are the owners of one acre of land in the same survey number and the kist receipt will only prove their possesion in respect of one acre of land and that would not prove their possession of 1.24 acres. Though the appellants claimed that they were issued patta in respect of 1.24 acres, they have not produced the patta. Considering all these aspects, both the Courts below rightly held that the appellants/ plaintiffs did not prove their title in respect of 1.24 acres and they the owners of one acre of land. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the Judgement and Decree of the Courts below and no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the Second Appeal and the Second Appeal is dismissed. 7. In the result, the Judgement and Decree of the Courts below are confirmed and the Second Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.