Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 4644 (MAD)

Sulaiman v. Venkatesan

2014-12-23

R.MAHADEVAN

body2014
JUDGMENT : Aggrieved against the concurrent findings of the courts below in decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction, the defendants have preferred this second appeal. 2. The plaint averments made by the plaintiffs before the Trial Court are as follows:- The suit item-1 property originally belonged to one Pachamuthu Konar and his son Sellaperumal Konar. They had transferred their right in the suit property, under a registered document dated 02.05.1978 for a valuable sale consideration, to these plaintiffs, appointing their mother Thulasiammal as their guardian, since the plaintiffs were minor at that time and had given possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs. From the date of purchase, Thulasiammal was in possession of the suit property and after attaining majority, the plaintiffs took possession by paying tax to the houses in the suit property. The plaintiffs and their vendors are in adverse possession of the suit property, since they are in continuous and uninterruped possession for long years. Suit item-2 property situates on the south side of item-1 property, which is the only access from Pennadam Ayyanar Kovil Street to the houses in the suit item-1 property. Since the predecessors and the plaintiffs have used item-2 property as pathway and cart track etc., for more than 40 years, the plaintiffs are entitled to necessary easement. After the purchase of the suit item-1, the mother of the plaintiffs had put up a compound wall of 6 feet height over BCD portion mentioned in the plaint plan. On 01.07.1994, the first defendant along with defendants 2 and 3 is attempting to put up construction in the suit item-2 property. If the defendants are allowed to do so, irreparable loss and hardship would be caused to the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed this suit for declaration of possessory right over the suit item-2 property and permanent injunction. 3. The brief averments made in the written statement filed by the first defendant and adopted by the 2nd and 3rd defendants are as follows:- These defendants claimed no right or possession over the suit item-1 property. Suit item-2 property never belonged to the plaintiffs and they have not used the same as pathway and they were not in possession of the same at any point of time. The boundaries given to the suit properties are wrong. Suit item-2 property never belonged to the plaintiffs and they have not used the same as pathway and they were not in possession of the same at any point of time. The boundaries given to the suit properties are wrong. The houses of Kuppayi, Ayisha Bi/3rd defendant and Kaveri Ammal are existed in between the suit item-1 property and the street. From the beginning, the plaintiffs used Semberi Salai as pathway and not the Ayyanar Koil Street and the said street came into existence after the vendors of Ayisha Bi, Kuppayi and Kaveri Ammal constructed their houses. There is no plot belonged to Jihiran, as stated in the plaint plan. On the western side of Kaveri Ammal's house, third defendant's plot lies, which was for the past 25 years in possession of one Kamatchi Ammal and in that plot Kamatchi Ammal put up a thatched hut with entrance on the eastern side. There is 15' gap in between the houses of Kamatchi Ammal and Kaveri Ammal. After the said hut was dilapidated, Kamatchi Ammal handed over possession of the said plot to Ayisha Bi on 08.12.1993. Therefore, the plaintiffs created problem with the 3rd defendant/Ayisha Bi and made encroachments on the property of the 3rd defendant. As per the order of the Block Development Officer dated 03.03.1994, the aforesaid encroachments were removed and vacant possession was handed over to the third defendant. Due to the same, the plaintiffs have filed this suit with a motive to prevent the third defendant from putting up construction in the plot purchased from Kamatchi Ammal and get interim injunction. The plaintiffs have no possessory and easementary right over the suit property . Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. On consideration of the above pleadings, the Trial Judge framed the following issues:- i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for? ii) To what relief? 5. Before the Trial Court, on the side of plaintiffs, three witnesses have been examined as PW.1 to PW.3 and five documents have been marked as Exhibits. On the side of defendants, two witnesses have been examined as DW.1 and DW.2 and eight documents have been marked as Exhibits. Advocate Commissioner's Report and Plan were marked as Exs.C1 and C2. The Trial Court, on analysis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides, decreed the suit as prayed for. On the side of defendants, two witnesses have been examined as DW.1 and DW.2 and eight documents have been marked as Exhibits. Advocate Commissioner's Report and Plan were marked as Exs.C1 and C2. The Trial Court, on analysis of the oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides, decreed the suit as prayed for. On appeal by the defendants, the first appellate court, confirmed the finding of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved against the concurrent judgment and decree of both the courts below, the present second appeal has been filed. 6. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed for consideration:- a) Whether the judgment and decree of the courts below are vitiated for want of appreciating the documentary evidences, viz. Ex.B7-Will as to the extent mentioned therein; Ex.B4- Approved plan sanctioned by the Town Panchayat recognizing the right and ownership of third appellant; and Exs.C1 and C2 which do not spell out the measurement in its proper perspective and opposed to settled principle of law that boundaries prevail over the extent? b) Whether the findings and conclusions of the Courts below that the plaintiffs have no other way to have access from Iyyanar Koil South Street constitutes error of law in the light of the physical feature of the suit properties as disclosed in Ex.C2, which forms part of the decree particularly when there is a possibility to have access through 'D & E' points and the alternative way available from Semberi Salai ? 7. The arguments advanced by Mr.V.Ayyadurai, learned counsel for the appellants and by Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents are heard in detail. The materials available on record are also perused. 8. The learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the Court below failed to appreciate Ex.B7 Will as to the extent conveyed to Kamatchiammal, who in turn sold the same to the third appellant and Ex.B4 Approved Plan issued by the Town Panchayat, Pennadam, to the third appellant to put up a new construction in the suit property and the Commissioner's report and plan Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 in a proper perspective and therefore, the judgment and decree of the courts below have to be set aside. 9. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that since the report and plan of the Advocate Commissioner do not spell out the measurement of the properties in dispute, it cannot be relied upon. He further submitted that the portion marked ''CDEF" in the plan was purchased by the plaintiff, and the compound wall marked as ''D-E'' was constructed with ulterior motive. The approved plan, as per the Town and Country Planning Act, produced was lost sight by the Courts below, but the Commissioner Report was seriously relied on, so as to defeat the plaintiff's easementary right by prescription. 10. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the non production of the sale deed executed in favour of the third appellant by the said Kamatchiammal cannot be fatal to the case of the third appellant. 11. The learned counsel for the appellants has added that what was conveyed by D.W.2 Kamatchiammal was larger extent than what she had under Ex.B7 Will, which finding cannot be accepted as it is contrary to the boundaries and the extent mentioned in Ex.B7 Will. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the respondents have proved that they have been using the second item of the suit property to reach the first item of the suit property by oral and documentary evidence and therefore, the appellants cannot question the easementary right of the respondents when the appellants do not have any right over the second item of the suit property. There is no pleadings to the effect that the area marked as ''A-D-E'' is available for entry, which had already been occupied by the third parties. 13. The learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that even the Advocate Commissioner's report and plan Exs.C1 and C2 clearly reveal that the respondents are using the second item of the suit property to reach their first item of the suit property and therefore, in the absence of any evidence either oral or documentary, the appellants cannot claim any right over the second item of the suit property. 14. The learned counsel for the respondents has contended that as per the provisions of Sections 101 and 104 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proof clearly lies on the appellants, which has not been discharged by them in the manner known to law. 15. 14. The learned counsel for the respondents has contended that as per the provisions of Sections 101 and 104 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proof clearly lies on the appellants, which has not been discharged by them in the manner known to law. 15. There is no dispute with regard to the first item of the suit property, which belongs to the respondents. The only dispute is with regard to the second item of the suit property. The claim of the respondents is that there is no other way to reach Iyanar Koil Street from the first item of the suit property except through the second item of the suit property and the appellants do not have any right over the second item of the suit property. 16. Perusal of the evidences adduced by P.Ws.2 and 3 reveal that the first item of the suit property belongs to the respondents and only through the second item of the suit property, the respondents can reach the first item of the suit property and further, the appellants do not have any right or interest over the second item of the suit property and they are not in possession and enjoyment of the same. 17. Perusal of the evidence of D.W.1 reveals that he has never been in possession and enjoyment of the second item of the suit property, which was purchased by the third appellant for Rs.10,000/- on 08.12.1993 from one Kamatchiammal and in the order issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer, it is clearly mentioned that the second item of the suit property belongs to the third appellant. 18. D.W.2 Kamatchi has also deposed that the property measuring east - west 35 feet and north - south 17 feet was sold to the third appellant, which she had acquired through the Will Ex.B7. 19. As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondents that the third appellant has not produced the alleged sale deed to prove that the second item of the suit property, measuring east - west 35 feet and north - south 17 feet, was purchased by her for Rs.10,000/- from the said Kamatchiammal and the non production of the alleged sale deed is really fatal to the case of the third appellant. Since it is the basic document for the third appellant to claim any right over the second item of the suit property, the non production of the same would clearly be fatal to the case of the third appellant. 20. When the third appellant asserts her right over the second item of the suit property, the burden of proof solely lies on her, which has not been discharged by her as rightly argued by the learned counsel for the respondents. 21. In this context, it would be better to see the relevant provisions in the Evidence Act. 22. Section 101 of the Evidence Act deals with the "Burden of Proof", which reads as under:- "101. Burden of Proof Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. 23. Section 102 of the Evidence Act deals with, "on whom burden of proof lies", which reads as under:- "102. On whom burden of proof lies The burden of proof in a suit or proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side." 24. Section 103 of the Evidence Act speaks about the Burden of proof as to particular fact. "103. Burden of proof as to particular fact - The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is proved by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person." 25. Section 104 of the Evidence Act deals with, "Burden of proving fact to be proved to make evidence admissible. "104. Burden of proving fact to be proved to make evidence admissible The burden of proving any fact necessary to be proved in order to enable any person to give evidence of any other fact is on the person who wishes to give such evidence. " 26. As per the above provisions of the Evidence Act, it is incumbent on the part of the third appellant to prove the fact that the second item of the suit property was purchased from the said Kamatchiammal. " 26. As per the above provisions of the Evidence Act, it is incumbent on the part of the third appellant to prove the fact that the second item of the suit property was purchased from the said Kamatchiammal. Unless and until she proves, by adducing oral and producing documentary evidence, it could be held that the burden of proof lies on her has not been discharged by her in the manner known to law. 27. Though the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that D.W.1 has deposed that the third appellant is having the right over the second item of the suit property, in the order issued by the Revenue Divisional Officer (Ex.B6) it is stated that the survey number of the second item of the suit property has been wrongly mentioned and the second item of the suit property is situated in S.No.218/1 and the road should be kept empty by removing the blockades and the road should be used by both the parties and therefore, from Ex.B6, it is clear that the second item of the suit proeprty is not belonged to the third appellant and she cannot claim any right over the same. 28. Further, though the third appellant has stated in the written statement that the basement of the house measures east - west 35 feet and north - south 17 feet, in Ex.B7-Will, the measurement of the house is mentioned as east - west 10 feet and north - south 10 feet. 29. As has been raised the contention by the learned counsel for the respondents that when the said Kamatchiammal had acquired the property under Ex.B7 Will measuring east - west 10 feet and north - south 10 feet, which was sold by the said Kamatchiammal to the third appellant, how the said Kamatchiammal could have sold the second item of the suit property measuring east - west 35 feet and north - south 17 feet. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, the said Kamatchiammal could not have been executed a better title than what she had and therefore, this Court is of the view that the claim of the third appellant in respect of the second item of the suit property creates a doubt and as such, she cannot make any claim in respect of the second item of the suit property. 30. 30. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidences both oral and documentary available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the third appellant has not proved her right and interest over the second item of the suit property, whereas the respondents have proved that they have been using the second item of the suit property to reach the first item of the suit property and the third appellant does not have any right or interest over the second item of the suit property and therefore, the judgment and decree of the courts below have to be confirmed and there are no reasons to interfere with the judgment and decree of the courts below. 31. For the aforesaid reasons and discussions, the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the respondents. 32. In the result, the second appeal fails and the same is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the courts below. However, there will be no order as to costs.