Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1390 (MAD)

S. Thirumeni @ Bakiavathi v. Maruthanayagam

2015-03-10

C.S.KARNAN

body2015
Judgment :- 1. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The plaintiffs stated that the schedule mentioned properties and other items of properties are situated at Uttamapandiankulam Village, classified as inam properties. The entire village of Uttamapandiankulam properties classified as inam properties and the same had been taken by the State Government as per Act 26/63. While so, the Settlement Tahsildar, Kovilpatti had conducted an enquiry and declared that the schedule mentioned properties and some other items of properties as Tharisu lands. Therefore, the plaintiffs and others made an appeal before the Revenue Authorities in Appeal Nos.384 and 394 of 1968. The Inam Abolition Tribunal / Revenue Authorities after hearing the appeals and remanded the same to the Settlement Tahsildar, Kovilpatti, for re-enquiry. The Settlement Tahsildar after conducting an enquiry, decided that the schedule mentioned properties classified as "Tharisu Lands" and passed orders dated 31.07.1991. Hence, the plaintiffs and others again made an appeal No.182/71 before the Minor and Inam Abolition Tribunal / Revenue Appellate Authority and pleaded to grant patta. Accordingly, the Minor Inam Abolition Tribunal set-aside the Settlement Tahsildar's orders and directed to issue a patta in the name of the plaintiffs and others. In the said proceedings, the first defendant, viz., B.S.Isac Durai (now expired) had participated as a party. Against the said Tribunal Order, no one has filed an appeal or revision and as such, the Minor Inam Abolition Tribunal's order dated 17.04.1974 has become final. The said order had been binding on the first defendant. The second and third defendants, viz., Maruthanayagam and Shanmuga Thevar had purchased the subject matter of the property from the joint owners and as such, the plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3 have become the owners of the schedule mentioned properties and they are enjoying the same jointly without any interference. Therefore, the plaintiffs are absolute owners of the properties. Further, as per the patta granted by the competent authority bearing patta No.7, the plaintiffs remitting the mandatory taxes for the said lands to the statutory authorities. In the meanwhile, the said Shanmuga Thevar, father of Ramachandra Devar and others had interfered with the plaintiffs, second and third defendants possession. Hence, the plaintiffs and the defendants 2 and 3 had filed a suit in O.S.No.630 of 1985, along with an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.729 of 1985, wherein, the civil Court had granted interim injunction. In the meanwhile, the said Shanmuga Thevar, father of Ramachandra Devar and others had interfered with the plaintiffs, second and third defendants possession. Hence, the plaintiffs and the defendants 2 and 3 had filed a suit in O.S.No.630 of 1985, along with an Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.729 of 1985, wherein, the civil Court had granted interim injunction. On the instigation of Ramachandra Devar, the first defendant (expired) assumed that he is having ownership over the schedule mentioned property and attempted to alienate the same. However, the first defendant could not claim any civil rights over the said properties. Under the circumstances, the first defendant took some persons to the schedule mentioned properties on 17.12.1985 for selling the said property, hence the suit in O.S.No.1285 of 1985 has been filed on the file of Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli. The first defendant had expired, hence the defendants 4 to 7 were added as necessary parties and as legal-heirs of the first defendant. While the suit is pending, the first defendant had alienated the property to and in favour of the eighth and ninth defendants, hence, they impleaded them as necessary parties in the said suit. 2. The first defendant viz., B.G.Issac Durai (deceased) had filed a counter statement and the same had been adopted by the defendants 4, 5 and 6, viz., Bakkiathai, Duraisingh and Christopher. The defendants stated that the schedule mentioned properties and some other properties were originally belonging to one Sivanu Thevar. The said Sivanu Thevar had executed a Will to and in favour of his sons, viz., Kandaswamy Thevar, Velayudha Thevar, Sudalami Muthu Thevar and Shamugha Thevar as legal-heirs, besides the genealogy of the family had also been filed. The defendants further stated that the plaintiffs and other family members are not having any rights over the schedule mentioned properties. The family members of Sivanu Thevar had lived as a joint family and enjoyed the said properties. One Subbiah Thevar and Sivanu Thevar had sold the schedule mentioned properties to and in favour of the first defendant and plaintiffs. Therefore, the Settlement Tahsildar, Kovilpatti had issued a joint patta dated 15.02.1968. The erstwhile owners of the schedule mentioned properties viz., Subbiah Thevar and Sivanu Thevar were the original owners of the property. The said Subbiah Thevar, who was the father of the Kandaswamy. Therefore, the Settlement Tahsildar, Kovilpatti had issued a joint patta dated 15.02.1968. The erstwhile owners of the schedule mentioned properties viz., Subbiah Thevar and Sivanu Thevar were the original owners of the property. The said Subbiah Thevar, who was the father of the Kandaswamy. The defendant had purchased the property for a sum of Rs.6,000/- under a registered sale deed dated 24.08.1967, registered on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Murappanadu. The defendants 8 and 9 had purchased the said property as per the original suit No.650 of 1986. As such, the Settlement Tahsildar's proceedings dated 31.07.1971 is not valid under law, besides the said order of the Settlement Tahsildar had not affected these defendants and their ancestors. Further, the first defendant and his ancestors had not received any communication or notice from the Inam Abolition Tribunal. The sale deeds whether valid or not, the same issue ought to have been decided by the civil Court and this observation had been given by the Inam Abolition Tribunal, dated 15.02.1968. Further, as per Hindu Succession Act, the plaintiffs and joint owners had not stated that a joint enjoyment had not derived from the schedule mentioned properties. 3. The Settlement Officers and the Settlement Tribunal's order had not decided in regard to enjoyment and possession. The civil forum is having jurisdiction to decide the said issue. The defendants further stated that the first defendant had been granted patta by the Taluk Tahsildar, Palayamkottai dated 21.10.1985. Further, the first defendant was not a party in the civil suits in O.S.No.630 of 1985 and O.S.No.650 of 1985. Further, the plaintiffs had not stated about the interference of the defendant. Therefore, there is no cause of action for seeking interim injunction restraining the joint family members. The plaintiffs ought to have filed a suit for partition along with the joint family members. As such, the plaintiffs misconceived the suit and seeking relief against the defendant which is not sustainable. 4. The second defendant, viz., Maruthanayagam had filed a counter statement and the same had been adopted by the third respondent, viz., Shanmuga Thevar and they are blood brothers. The defendants 2 and 3 had purchased the property from the joint owners of the schedule mentioned properties and are enjoying the same. The defendants remitting the taxto the statutory authorities. The defendants admitted the plaintiffs case as true. The defendants 2 and 3 had purchased the property from the joint owners of the schedule mentioned properties and are enjoying the same. The defendants remitting the taxto the statutory authorities. The defendants admitted the plaintiffs case as true. As such, the plaintiffs had filed the said suit on behalf of the defendants 2 and 3 and the plaintiffs themselves. As such, the defendants have no objection for granting judgment and decree. 5. The eighth and ninth defendants had filed a counter statement and refuted the above suit. The defendants 8 and 9 admit that the entire property situated at Uttamapandiankulam Village was originally classified as Inam land and the same had been taken over by the Government in the year 1963. The Settlement Tahsildar, Kovilpatti had conducted proceedings, wherein 63 members had participated. The Settlement Tahsildar had issued an order dated 15.02.1968 pertaining to the lands comprised in Survey No.46 and granted patta to the plaintiffs and the first defendant herein and other 5 members. The first defendant had executed a sale deed to and in favour of these defendants. Against the said patta proceedings granted by the Settlement Tahsildar, an appeal has been filed and the Appellate Authority had remitted the matter to the Settlement Tahsildar for a re-enquiry. Thereafter, the said Tahsildar had cancelled the patta proceedings which had been granted in favour of the 7 members including the plaintiffs and first defendant. Aggrieved by the said orders, an appeal has been filed, wherein the defendants 8 and 9 arrayed as eighth respondent. At the time of the enquiry before the Appellate Authority, the learned counsel from both sides had agreed to grant patta to the said 7 members. Accordingly, the appeal had been disposed of. Thereafter, the patta had been issued including the first defendant, who was the erstwhile vendor of the defendants 8 and 9. As such, the averments of the plaint are not true. The second and third defendants stated that they had purchased the property from the joint owners, subsequently, which is not correct. Further, the plaintiffs, second and third defendants have stated that they are enjoying the property jointly without any interference and as such, the others cannot claim any civil rights over the said property is not true. Further, the plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3 had not remitted any land tax to the statutory authorities. Further, the plaintiffs, second and third defendants have stated that they are enjoying the property jointly without any interference and as such, the others cannot claim any civil rights over the said property is not true. Further, the plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3 had not remitted any land tax to the statutory authorities. Accordingly, the plaintiffs and the defendants 2 and 3 are not having any rights or enjoyment of the properties. 6. The defendants 8 and 9 further alleged that one Ramachandra Thevar and others had interfered with the schedule mentioned properties and disturbed the plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3, hence, they levelled an original suit in O.S.No.630 of 1985, for an interim injunction restraining them, which is also not correct. The first defendants had been granted patta bearing registration No.RAIAT No.182/71 for the schedule mentioned properties comprising of survey Nos.36, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49 and also Uttamapandiankulam Village Adangal Nos.197 and 200. All these properties were belonging to Sivanu Thegvar, who had executed a Will to and in favour of his four sons. Accordingly, all the four sons had succeeded 1/4 of the property. Out of these properties, some of the legal-heirs of the four sons who developed some portion of the lands and are in enjoyment of the same. The schedule mentioned property to an extent of 20.25 hectares was under the elder son of Sivanu Thevar. The first defendant had purchased the schedule mentioned property from the legal-heirs of the eldest son of the Sivanu Thevar. The plaintiffs had purchased 1/6 shares out of 1/4 share which was belonging to the second son Sivanu Thevar. The second son of Sivanu Thevar got 6 daughters, out of them one Gomathi Ammal had executed 1/6 share, out of 1/4 share to and in favour of the plaintiffs. The second and third defendants had not purchased anywhere from any of the landowners. The plaintiffs purchased properties situated on the western side of the schedule mentioned properties and as such, the eighth and ninth defendants who had purchased the property from the first defendant, wherein, the plaintiffs did not have any rights and enjoyments over the said property. Therefore, the plaintiffs prayer for declaration and injunction is not maintainable. Further, after the Tribunal Proceedings, the Revenue Tahsildar had issued a patta pertaining to alienation of his property. Therefore, the plaintiffs prayer for declaration and injunction is not maintainable. Further, after the Tribunal Proceedings, the Revenue Tahsildar had issued a patta pertaining to alienation of his property. The ninth defendant also remitting mandatory tax to the statutory authorities. The eighth and ninth defendants had purchased the different schedule mentioned properties and obtained the properties under two different sale deeds dated 10.01.1986. From the date of purchase, the defendants 8 and 9 are enjoying the said properties to an extent of 24 acres 25 cents, which is situated at the western side. The properties pertaining to Survey Nos.46/1 and 46/2 have been subdivided and patta had been issued in the name of the eighth and ninth defendants, who are also paying tax. 7. The defendants further stated that the original suit in O.S.No.650 of 1986 had been filed by the plaintiffs and the eighth and ninth defendants were not aware of the suit. After obtaining a sale deed by the eighth and ninth defendants, the plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3 had filed original suit in O.S.No.650 of 1986, against the defendants 8 and 9 and challenged the sale deed and enjoyment of the same. In the said suit, these defendants had marked sale deeds, tax receipts and other relevant records had been marked as exhibits. After contest, the suit was dismissed and the learned Judge had confirmed that the defendants are owners of the property and are in enjoyment of the same. In the said suit, the plaintiffs had also filed an interlocutory application for an interim injunction and the same was dismissed by the trial Court. Thereafter, the sale deed went upto the High Court for the same relief, but it was negativated. After the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.650 of 1986, the aggrieved plaintiffs had filed an appeal suit in A.S.No.16 of 1989, before the Sub Court, Tirunelveli and the same was dismissed. Against the dismissal of the said appeal suit, the plaintiffs had filed second appeal before this Court, which is pending enquiry. Under the circumstances, the plaintiffs and the second and third defendants had attempted to obtain an interim injunction, but the interim application was dismissed. As such, the above suit is not maintainable since the same issue had been decided in the earliest suit in O.S.No.650 of 1986. Therefore, the above suit has become infructuous. Under the circumstances, the plaintiffs and the second and third defendants had attempted to obtain an interim injunction, but the interim application was dismissed. As such, the above suit is not maintainable since the same issue had been decided in the earliest suit in O.S.No.650 of 1986. Therefore, the above suit has become infructuous. Further, the above suit is not maintainable since the connected second appeal is pending before this Court, which is pertaining to the schedule mentioned properties. Further, the plaintiffs ought to have filed a suit for partition and separate portion since they had purchased undivided property. Therefore, the prayer of the plaintiffs for a declaration and injunction is not maintainable regarding the property. Further, the other landowners are necessary parties in the above suit, but they have not been impleaded in the suit. As such, the suit is misconceived as a non-joinder of parties. 8. While the suit is pending, the third defendant herein has filed a suit in O.S.No.237 of 1992 for permanent injunction, but the same was not granted. The allegation that the second, eighth, ninth defendants had trespassed into the settlement property, for which a criminal proceedings had been initiated, which was rejected. The Settlement Proceedings, patta proceedings have not reached finality in the Revenue Department. Regarding joint owners and joint family members, enjoyments and rights have to be decided by the civil forum and as such, the above suit is not maintainable, hence these defendants prayed to dismiss the above suit. 9. After considering the averments of the plaint and the written statements, the trial Court had framed four main issues and one additional issues, which are as follows:- "(i) Whether the suit schedule mentioned properties belonging to the plaintiffs, second and third defendants? (ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to obtain mandatory injunction? (iii) Whether this Court having original jurisdiction to try the suit? (iv) What other reliefs the plaintiffs are entitled to get?" The additional issue is that whether the said suit has become infructuous on the basis of judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.650 of 1986?" 10. On the side of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. On the side of the defendants D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D1 to D5 were marked. On the side of the plaintiffs, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P6 were marked. On the side of the defendants D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D1 to D5 were marked. The additional issue No.1 had been discussed as follows:- The suit in O.S.No.650 of 1986 had been filed by the plaintiffs herein and the defendants 2 and 3 herein restraining the respondents stating that the schedule mentioned properties to be declared as they are the owners of the property and also sought interim relief not to alienate the said properties. Initially, interim order had been passed not to alienate the said properties. After serving summons on the first defendant herein, thereafter, the first defendant alienated a part of the schedule mentioned property to an extent of 20.25 hectares to and in favour of the eighth and ninth defendants herein under a registered sale deed dated 10.01.1986. Thereafter, the plaintiffs and the defendants 2 and 3 had filed the suit in O.S.No.650 of 1986 against the defendants 8 and 9 and the same was dismissed after trial. The said document viz., decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.650 of 1986 had been marked as Ex.D1. Against the said dismissal order in the interlocutory application, the plaintiffs had filed a civil revision petition No.299 of 1988 before the High Court and the same was dismissed. The dismissal order passed by the High Court in C.R.P.No.299 of 1988 had been marked as Ex.D2. Against the dismissal of the original suit in O.S.No.650 of 1986, the plaintiffs had filed an appeal suit No.16 of 1989, on the file of Sub Court, Tirunelveli. The said first appeal had been dismissed and confirmed the trial Court Judgment. Against the dismissal of the said appeal suit, the second appeal had been filed before the High Court. Therefore, the present suit in O.S.No.1285 of 1985 is not maintainable. 11. The trial Court further observed that the eighth and ninth defendants have purchased a portion of the schedule mentioned property is belong to the eighth and ninth defendants and the same was confirmed in the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.650 of 1986 and the same was admitted by the husband of the first plaintiff in his cross examination. 11. The trial Court further observed that the eighth and ninth defendants have purchased a portion of the schedule mentioned property is belong to the eighth and ninth defendants and the same was confirmed in the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.650 of 1986 and the same was admitted by the husband of the first plaintiff in his cross examination. However, the trial Court had observed that the second appeal which is pending on the file of the High Court, which is arising from O.S.No.650 of 1986, hence, the suit is not maintainable, accordingly, observed by the trial Court. 12. Regarding issue No.3, the trial Court observed that the Court having original jurisdiction to try the said suit. Regarding issue No.1, the trial Court had observed that the entire suit schedule property situated at Uttamapandiankulam Village was classified as Inam property. The same was taken by the Government under the Minor Inam Abolition Act, 1963. Thereafter, the settlement proceedings were conducted before the Settlement Officer, wherein, the Settlement Officer had granted patta proceedings in favour of the plaintiffs herein and three others comprised in Survey Nos.36, 44, 45, 46, 48 and 49. On the basis of patta proceedings, the plaintiffs had remitted tax. The tax receipts had been marked as Exs.A2. Subsequently, a suit has been filed in O.S.No.83 of 1964 regarding lease amount for entire cultivation made by the occupants. Copy of the Judgment passed in the said suit has been marked as Ex.A3. Thereafter, one Sivasubramaniam and four others had filed O.S.No.708 of 1985 against the plaintiffs and four others and the said suit has been decreed. Hence, the patta had been issued in favour of the first defendant. Subsequently, the patta proceedings had been challenged by the plaintiffs and the same had been cancelled. The aggrieved defendant had filed an appeal before the District Revenue Officer, who in turn had given liberty to the defendant to approach the civil forum for this remedy. Further, the plaintiff / P.W.1 had admitted that the patta had been issued in favour of the eighth and ninth defendants herein on the basis of sale deed, which had been executed by the first defendant. The trial Court further observed that the defendants had filed a Review Application before the Revenue Authorities. Further, the plaintiff / P.W.1 had admitted that the patta had been issued in favour of the eighth and ninth defendants herein on the basis of sale deed, which had been executed by the first defendant. The trial Court further observed that the defendants had filed a Review Application before the Revenue Authorities. However, on the basis of the Revenue Appeals, the title would not be decided since the property had been covered under the Minor Inam Abolition Act, accordingly, observed by the trial Court. 13. The trial Court further observed that three persons had been granted to issue patta except the plaintiffs. However, the plaintiffs and defendants 2 and 3 had stated that they are absolute owners of the suit schedule mentioned property, but they did not give any explanation regarding the occupation of the schedule mentioned property by the Kaliappan Chettiyar, Shakthivel Chettiyar and Chinnathambi Thevar, besides how the plaintiffs had acquired their properties. The trial Court further mentioned that the first defendant had purchased properties from one Komathiammal, Gurusami Thevar and Shanmugha Thevar under three different sale deeds, but the plaintiffs had not given explanation that how the said vendors had obtained civil rights over the said property, but the first defendant had filed a genealogy diagram of the Sivanu Thevar. The first defendant had expired, therefore, the legal-heirs of the first defendant had adopted the written statement. 14. Further, the trial Court found that the legal-heirs of the Sivanu Thevar had executed a sale deed to and in favour of the first defendant herein to an extent of 1/6 share, out of 1/4 shares, for which, the plaintiffs had not given any supporting documents or evidence. Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of 1/6 share would not be accepted. Likewise, the second and third defendants had not produced any sale deeds or title deeds for claiming their civil rights over the said properties. Regarding collection of lease amount, the erstwhile owner Gomathi Ammal's name was found as lessor. However, she was not sole legal-heir of entire property. While the suit was pending, the second appeal has been filed against the defendants herein. The trial Court further found that the defendants 8 and 9 had purchased the said schedule mentioned property while the interim order was in force which restrains the first defendant not to alienate the said property. However, she was not sole legal-heir of entire property. While the suit was pending, the second appeal has been filed against the defendants herein. The trial Court further found that the defendants 8 and 9 had purchased the said schedule mentioned property while the interim order was in force which restrains the first defendant not to alienate the said property. The alienation had taken place without disposing the interim order to the eighth and ninth defendants. 15. The trial Court after recording the evidence of both parties and on perusing the documents marked by the plaintiffs as exhibits P1 to P6. viz., Ex.P1-Tirunelveli Minor Inam Abolition Tribunal had passed an order in proceedings No.182/71, dated 17.04.1974, Ex.P2-the first plaintiff had remitted the tax for which the proof has been marked, receipt dated 07.04.1983, Ex.P3-Sub Court, Tirunelvelihas passed a judgment in O.S.No.83 of 1965 and O.S.No.66 of 1962, Ex.P4-a copy of the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.708 o 1985, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, Ex.P5-a copy of the appeal proceedings No.5188 of 1995, on the file of Revenue Officials, Tirunelveli, dated 09.11.1995 and Ex.P6-a copy of the decree and judgment passed in C.M.P.No.15836 and 15837 of 1995 in S.A.No.1036 of 1992, dated 14.12.1995. 16. On the side of the defendants, the below mentioned exhibits were marked, viz., Ex.D1-a copy of the decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.650 of 1986, dated 08.03.1989, Ex.D2-a copy of the order passed in second appeal No.299 of 1988, on the file of High court of Judicature, Madras, dated 16.03.1988, Ex.D3-a copy of the judgment along with a miscellaneous petition passed in second appeal No.1036 of 1992, dated 21.09.1992, Exs.D and D5-land tax receipts issued in the name of the eight defendant. 17. After recording the evidence of both witnesses and on perusing the exhibits marked by them, the trial Court dismissed the original suit No.1285 of 1985, dated 21.12.1996. The aggrieved plaintiffs had filed appeal suit No.110 of 1997, on the file of I Additional subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. The learned Judge had framed three issues and on perusing the appeal grounds raised by the plaintiffs and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for their respective parties, had dismissed the appeal suit. 18. Not being satisfied with the dismissal of the appeal suit, the second appeal has been filed before this Court. 19. The learned Judge had framed three issues and on perusing the appeal grounds raised by the plaintiffs and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for their respective parties, had dismissed the appeal suit. 18. Not being satisfied with the dismissal of the appeal suit, the second appeal has been filed before this Court. 19. Today, the matter came up before this Court, the learned counsel for the appellant had filed a Memo stating that the appellant got back the entire case bundles along with the change of vakalat from them and as such, they are not in a position to get along with the above second appeal. 20. Originally, the suit has been initiated in the year 1985 and as such, the matter is being proceeded for around 32 years, therefore, this Court is constrained to pass final orders, after considering the decree and judgments of both Courts and on perusing the appeal grounds raised by the erstwhile learned counsel, who appeared for the appellant and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsels for their respective parties. 21. The appeal grounds which are as follows:- The learned counsel mentioned that the first appellate Court had not considered the oral and documentary evidence and merely extracted the findings of the trial Court, confirmed the judgment passed by the trial Court without analyzing the documentary and oral evidence of the plaintiff. The genealogy filed by the defendant along with a written statement and the same was accepted by the trial Court under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act and in order to prove the genealogy, proof of documentary evidence was not produced. All the title deeds pertaining to the suit schedule mentioned property had been filed in the connected suit in O.S.No.650 of 1986. The decree and judgment passed in the said suit had been marked as Exs.B1, wherein, the validity of the sale deed has been proved. The trial Court and first appellate Court had rendered judgments on the basis of the genealogy diagram produced by the defendants and not any other title deeds pertaining to the suit schedule mentioned properties. The plaintiffs have purchased the suit property from one Gomathiammal and Sivasami Thevar and his brothers who are all Kudivaramthars and as such, the plaintiffs got title deeds. The plaintiffs have purchased the suit property from one Gomathiammal and Sivasami Thevar and his brothers who are all Kudivaramthars and as such, the plaintiffs got title deeds. The same was proved on the basis of decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.83 of 1964, which proves that the Kudivaramthars are vendors. On the basis of the sale deed, patta has been granted in favour of the appellants, which clearly establishes that the appellants are in physical possession. 22. The learned counsel for the appellants has raised further grounds stating that the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge failed to see that even assuming that the genealogy tree filed by the defendants are true. There is no documents filed by defendants to show that the property belongs to the family and the members have right or share in the same. When the defendants failed to prove that properties belong to the entire family, the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge erred in finding that Gomathiammal had only 1/4 share in the property. As per the Ex.A3, it clearly mentions that Gomathiammal was in possession to an extent of 24.50 acres and Sivasami Thevar was in possession of another 24.50 acres, in total 49 acres which is the subject matter of the suit. Further, the Minor Inam Abolition Tribunal had granted ryotwari patta in favour of the plaintiffs after considering all the relevant documents filed by the plaintiff. In the above said proceedings, the first defendant was a party and the same is binding on him and defendants 8 to 9 are the subsequent purchasers. The first defendant had not preferred any appeal or revision passed by the Tribunal and as such, the Minor Inam Abolition Tribunal findings become final. 23. The highly competent counsel for the appellant further added the grounds that the first appellate Court failed to see that the first defendant and the subsequent purchasers, viz., the defendants 8 and 9 received an adverse order under Ex.A1, have not moved any civil Court to prove the title or possession over the suit property. 23. The highly competent counsel for the appellant further added the grounds that the first appellate Court failed to see that the first defendant and the subsequent purchasers, viz., the defendants 8 and 9 received an adverse order under Ex.A1, have not moved any civil Court to prove the title or possession over the suit property. Further, the learned I Appellate court had not assigned any valid reasons for dismissing the first appeal besides the learned counsel has two questions of law in the appeal, which are as follows:- "(i) Is the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge right in dismissing the appeal in view of impleading the heirs of the deceased plaintiffs when admittedly each of the plaintiffs have separate cause of action against the defendants? (ii) When the Revenue Courts proved the possession and title of the plaintiffs is the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge right in dismissing the suit for title?" 24. The 26th respondent herein has filed a counter statement in M.P.No.1 of 2015 in S.A.(MD)No.803 of 2006, wherein, she denied that the petitioner has purchased the properties along with 2 other persons in the year 1966. The 26th respondent also denied that the sale deed pertaining to the suit properties and all other documents have been filed by the petitioner in O.S.No.650 of 1986 filed against eighth and ninth defendants in the present suit. The petitioner is put to strict proof regarding the contents of the order of the High Court. The petitioner is put to strict proof that the petitioner was permitted to file this case in the present O.S.No.1285 of 1985. The petitioner is not in anyway precluded from filing the additional evidence which is now sought to be produced as additional evidence. Even if the allegations made in para 4 of the affidavit is true, these documents ought to have produced, either before the trial Court or before the first appellate Court. 25. The 26th respondent further submits that on going through the entire averments pleaded in the plaint, the petitioner has not claimed his title on the basis of the present documents of title sought to be let in as additional evidence. 25. The 26th respondent further submits that on going through the entire averments pleaded in the plaint, the petitioner has not claimed his title on the basis of the present documents of title sought to be let in as additional evidence. The history of the tracing of title culled out from para 3 to 5 of the plaint does not whisper any thing about these documents already submitted no evidence can be let in without pleadings is the fundamental basis of law. The 26th respondent further submits that the suit is of the year 1985 and it is filed on 19.01.1985. The suit has been disposed of 21.12.1996. The first appeal has been filed on 17.03.1997 and it has been disposed of on 27.11.2000. In the trial Court, the suit had been pending nearly for 11 years and before first appellant Court it had been pending nearly for three years. Thereafter, the second appeal had been filed even in the year 2003 and before this Court 11 years had been lapsed. Almost 29 years has passed. No reasonable and justifiable reason had been stated in the affidavit for receiving the present 5 documents as additional evidence after a period of 29 years. In the present case admittedly, as per the pleadings in this affidavit it is not as though the petitioner does not have knowledge of the availability of these documents. The present petitioner had filed O.S.No.630 of 1995 even as early as on 24.06.1985. Even in the said case, he is very well aware of the availability of these documents. Hence, there is no proper and justifiable reasons for the petitioner to produce these documents as additional evidence at this belated stage before the second appellate Court. The present petition had been filed only to fill up the lacuna in the petitioner / plaintiff's case and to drag on the proceedings. The 26th respondent further submits that it is not the case of the petitioner that that in spite exercise of due diligence, he was not able to produce these documents either before the trial Court or before the first appellate Court or even before this Court at the earliest point of time, when the second appeal had been filed as early as in the year 2003. 26. Mr. 26. Mr. A.Thiyagarajan, learned counsel appearing for the 26th respondent submits that the appellant did not possess any valid title deeds over the said schedule mentioned property for claiming of civil rights. Further, the petitioner has now filed a petition to receive additional documents after a lapse of 29 years. All the descriptions of the documents mentioned in the petition are very old documents and also irrelevant to this appeal. Now, the appellants went to produce 5 additional documents to establish her appeal before this Court, which created a new cause of action and also will arise additional issues. Further, for marking the documents, clarification is required from the appellant by way of recording evidence of the appellant herein, i.e., Chief and Cross Examination, that cannot be done before this Court since this Court is an appellate forum. Therefore, this Court ought to have passed the judgments of both Courts below, whether the trial Court and first appellate Court had committed any irregularities or illegalities in their respective judgments and therefore, the additional documents cannot be marked before this Court. Hence, the highly competent counsel Mr. Thiagarajan entreats the Court to dismiss the above suit along with miscellanoues petition application in M.P.No.1 of 2015. In support of his contentions, the highly competent counsel has cited the following judgment- Venkataraja V. Vidyane Doureradjaperumal reported in 2013 (3) CTC 440 Specific Relief Act, 1963 (47 of 1963), Section 34 - Suit for declaration of title to property and for declaration of Sale Deed as null and void - Tenant / Defendants residing in suit property - No relief of delivery of possession claimed in plaint - No amendment sought to be made in Plaint to include relief of delivery of possession - Mere declaratory relief un-executable in most cases - Held, suit filed by plaintiff's not maintainable as relief of possession not claimed - Plaintiffs not entitled to file different suit for eviction - Appeals filed by Plaintiffs, dismissed - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 2, Rule 2." 27. The highly competent senior counsel Mr. S.Meenakshisundaram appearing for the respondents 22 to 24, 27 and 28 submits that the appellant did not prove her case before the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. The highly competent senior counsel Mr. S.Meenakshisundaram appearing for the respondents 22 to 24, 27 and 28 submits that the appellant did not prove her case before the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. Further, the first defendant had executed a sale deed to and in favour of Vasigara Thilagar and Thangaraj, who are the eight and ninth defendants in the suit. The said sale deed has been executed on 24.08.1967 and the same had been registered on the file of the Murappanadu Sub Registrars Office. Therefore, the subsequent proceedings passed by the Settlement Tahsildar, dated 31.07.1971 is not sustainable under law. The highly competent senior counsel Mr.Meenakshisundaram further submits that the entire property of the Uttamapandiankulam Village was classified as adheenam inam land. The same had been taken by the Government in the year 1963. Thereafter, the Settlement Thasildar, Kovilpatti had conducted proceedings and granted patta in favour of eighth and ninth defendants including another 5 persons. Against the said patta, proceedings had been granted in favour of 7 persons which was challenged before the Inam Abolition Tribunal wherein, the Tribunal had remanded the matter to the settlement Tahsildar. The Settlement Tahsildar, subsequently, cancelled the patta. Aggrieved by the said cancellation of the patta, an appeal had been filed before the Appellate Authority, who had granted patta in favour of 7 persons including 8th and 9th defendants after conducting a comprehensive inquiry and on hearing the learned counsel of both parties. 28. The highly competent senior counsel Mr. S.Meenakshisundaram appearing for the respondents 22 to 24, 27 and 28 further submits that the 2nd and 3rd defendants had not purchased the said property from the Joint owners, besides they have not produced any sale deed in order to prove the said alienation. The plaintiffs and the defendants 2 ad 3 have not possessed any valid title deeds for claiming civil rights over the said properties. Further, the plaintiff had misconceived a suit in O.S.No.650 of 1985 and levelled the same against the 3rd parties and sought interim injunction restraining them. Actually, the 1st defendant and his purchasers viz., 8th and 9th defendants are necessary parties, but they have not been impleaded in the said suit. The competent authorities had issued a patta in favour of the first respondent in the suit mentioned properties. Actually, the 1st defendant and his purchasers viz., 8th and 9th defendants are necessary parties, but they have not been impleaded in the said suit. The competent authorities had issued a patta in favour of the first respondent in the suit mentioned properties. The first defendant had purchased 1/4 share from the eldest son of Sivanu Thevar. Likewise, the plaintiffs had purchased 1/6 share out of 1/4th share from the second son of Sivanu Thevar. The second son of Sivanu Thevar got 6 daughters, out of them one Govindammal had alienated 1/6th share, out of 1/4th share to the plaintiffs. The 2nd and 3rd defendants had not purchased any property out of the suit schedule mentioned property. As such, the plaintiffs cannot claim any rights over the schedule mentioned property, which is absolutely belonging to the eighth and ninth defendants and as such, the suit filed by the plaintiffs for a declaration and injunction is not maintainable since the plaintiffs did not possess any valid title deeds or marketable title deeds over the schedule mentioned properties, besides, the plaintiffs are not in physical possession and enjoying the same. Therefore, the order of interim injunction is not maintainable. 29. The highly competent senior counsel Mr. S.Meenakshisundaram appearing for the respondents 22 to 24, 27 and 28 further submits that after granting patta proceedings by the Inam Abolition Tribunal to and in favour of the eighth and ninth defendants and others and on the basis of the said patta proceedings the ninth defendant had also obtained patta from the Regular Tahsildar, who is attached to the Revenue Department. The ninth defendant also remitting the mandatory tax to the statutory authorities. The eighth and ninth defendants have purchased the suit schedule mentioned properties under two separate sale deeds which had been duly registered, on the file of the Sub Registrar, dated 10.01.1986. From the date of purchase, the eighth and ninth defendants occupied to an extent of 24 acres in 25 cents on the western side of the property without any interference. Thereafter, the property comprised in Survey No.46, which has been made into a Sub Division 46/1 and 46/2 and granted patta to the eighth and ninth defendants respectively by the Revenue Tahsildar. Further, they are regularly remitting the tax to the statutory authorities. 30. The highly competent senior counsel Mr. Thereafter, the property comprised in Survey No.46, which has been made into a Sub Division 46/1 and 46/2 and granted patta to the eighth and ninth defendants respectively by the Revenue Tahsildar. Further, they are regularly remitting the tax to the statutory authorities. 30. The highly competent senior counsel Mr. S.Meenakshisundaram appearing for the respondents 22 to 24, 27 and 28 further submits that the plaintiffs and the defendants 2 and 3 have jointly filed a suit in O.S.No.650 of 1986 against the 8th and 9th defendants and challenging the sale deeds which had been executed by the 1st defendant dated 10.01.1986 besides enjoyment of the same. The said suit had been tried on merits and decided that the defendants 8th and 9th are absolute owners of the property. Against, the said decree and judgment, the plaintiff had filed an appeal before the Sub Court, Tirunelveli and the same was dismissed, Subsequently, second appeal filed by the plaintiffs was also dismissed. Therefore, the present suit and the subsequent appeals are not maintainable since on the same property, the same cause of action, same issue, same prayer and the same parties have been decided on merits by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court. Further, the plaintiffs had purchased undivided share from the vendor and as such they have to file suit for a separate possession but in the instant suit had been filed for declaration without impleading necessary parties i.e., erstwhile vendors of the plaintiffs' suits. The 3rd defendant had also levelled a suit in O.S.No.237 of 1993 for permanent injunction regarding suit schedule mentioned property, the same was not granted. The second defendant had initiated criminal proceedings and the same was rejected, as such the plaintiffs and 2nd and 3rd defendants had not proved their case against other defendants before the Trial Court as well as the first appellate Court. The Trial Court and the first appellate Court had framed necessary issues and decided the matter on merits. Both Court judgments suitable for execution since there is no lacuna or shortcoming in the judgments of the Courts below. In support of his contentions, the highly competent counsel has cited the following judgments:- RAJASTHAN SRTC v. BAJRANG LAL reported in (2014) 4 Supreme Court Cases 693 "A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Or. 6 Rr.2 and 4 and Or. Both Court judgments suitable for execution since there is no lacuna or shortcoming in the judgments of the Courts below. In support of his contentions, the highly competent counsel has cited the following judgments:- RAJASTHAN SRTC v. BAJRANG LAL reported in (2014) 4 Supreme Court Cases 693 "A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Or. 6 Rr.2 and 4 and Or. 8 Rr.3 to 5 - Pleadings - Importance of - Detailed particularized and specific pleadings - Necessity - Held, a party has to plead his case and adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions - In case of incomplete pleadings, Court is under no obligation to entertain same - On facts held, in absence of any specific pleading as to what document had not been supplied to plaintiff-respondent delinquent which was relied upon by enquiry officer, or which witness was not permitted to be cross-examined by him, finding of trial Court that departmental enquiry initiated against plaintiff-respondent was in violation of natural justice, held, is erroneous, since same was based merely on allegations in plaint which the defendant-appellant corporation had failed to rebut - Moreover, burden of proving the issue was on plaintiff-respondent and not defendant Corporation - Hence, dismissal order, restored - Service Law - Departmental Enquiry - Pleading and proof - Evidence Act, 1872, Ss 101 to 103. B. Civil Procedure Code, 1903 - Or. 8 Rr. 3 to 5 and Or. 6 Rr. 2 to 4 - Admission by failure to deny / traverse - When obtains - Specific pleadings in plaint, held, is a prerequisite - Evidence Act, 1872, S.17" 31. The highly competent counsel appearing for the 2nd and 3rd defendants submits that they had purchased the property from the second son of Sivanu Thevar. The settlement Tahsildar had also issued a patta in favour of plaintiffs and second and third defendants. The second and third defendants are blood brothers and they have purchased the properties from the joint owners. From the date of purchase they have been in possession and enjoying the same without any interference besides they have remitted mandatory tax to the statutory authorities. Further, the defendants have no objection to allow the above appeal and grant decree, judgment in favour of the plaintiff. 32. From the date of purchase they have been in possession and enjoying the same without any interference besides they have remitted mandatory tax to the statutory authorities. Further, the defendants have no objection to allow the above appeal and grant decree, judgment in favour of the plaintiff. 32. From the above discussion, the Court is of the view that:- (i) The plaintiffs, second and third defendants have stated in their averments that they have purchased the suit schedule mentioned properties from the joint owners of the property. In order to prove the same, there are no sale deeds or any documentary proof has been marked. Therefore, the plaintiffs, second and third defendants have failed to establish their ownership, occupation and enjoyment. (ii) The plaintiffs and the defendants have stated that they have obtained patta from the Minor Inam Abolition Tribunal, Tirunelveli and the same had not been marked as crucial document before the trial Court. (iii) The plaintiffs, the second and third defendants have stated that they have remitted the tax to the statutory authorities, for which, they have not produced any adequate land tax receipt for the relevant period, i.e., from the date of ownership claimed by the plaintiffs. (iv) The plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S.No.650 of 1986 restraining the defendants eighth and ninth defendants and also the first defendant for injunction and declaration, for the same schedule mentioned properties. The said suit was dismissed, subsequently the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Sub Court, Tirunelveli and the same was dismissed. Against, the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the plaintiffs, second and third defendants had filed a second appeal before this Court and the same was dismissed on merits and the decree and judgment passed by all Courts have become final. Now, the same parties namely, plaintiffs, second and third defendants had sought similar relief in the suit, viz., O.S.No.1285 of 1985, on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, is not sustainable under law. Now, the same parties namely, plaintiffs, second and third defendants had sought similar relief in the suit, viz., O.S.No.1285 of 1985, on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, is not sustainable under law. (v) The plaintiffs have not marked relevant title deeds pertaining to the suit schedule mentioned properties in order to prove their Civil Rights continuously from the date of purchase or from the date of patta issued by the Inam Abolition Tribunal, besides the plaintiffs ought to have impleaded the Settlement Tahsildar or Revenue Tahsildar as necessary parties in order to give clarification regarding the suit schedule mentioned properties as to who is in physical possession and under what capacity, the patta had been issued in favour of the plaintiffs and the second and third defendants and as such the plaintiffs have failed to prove their civil rights over the said properties. (vi) The second defendant had levelled a criminal case against the eighth and ninth defendants for wrong entry made with his suit schedule mentioned property. The said case had not been proved against the eighth and ninth defendants. As such, the second defendant had failed to prove his lawful possession over the schedule mentioned property. (vii) The plaintiffs/appellant herein has filed a supplementary application in order to produce five registered sale deeds as additional documents before this Court. All the five registered sale deeds stands in the name of the plaintiffs executed by erstwhile owners. The five sale deeds have been registered on various dates i.e., 19.08.1966, 10.12.1966, 27.01.1967, 29.10.1981 and 15.09.1982 respectively. On the basis of these five registered sale deeds, the Revenue Records and other Government records namely patta, chitta, adangal or any electrical service connection has not been mentioned in the name of the plaintiffs in order to prove their lawful occupation and enjoyment and as such the plaintiffs failed to prove their lawful occupation and enjoyment and as such, the plaintiffs failed to produce the relevant current documents. Therefore, they have not possessed valid title deeds or marketable title deeds over the said properties. (viii) The eighth and ninth defendants have marked judgment copies of the District Munsif Court, High Court of Madras, proving that the plaintiffs lost their case on a similar relief. Therefore, they have not possessed valid title deeds or marketable title deeds over the said properties. (viii) The eighth and ninth defendants have marked judgment copies of the District Munsif Court, High Court of Madras, proving that the plaintiffs lost their case on a similar relief. (ix) The Trial Court had framed four issues and decided the same after recording evidence from both sides and on perusing the exhibits marked by both parties, the suit was dismissed. Likewise, the first appellate Court also decided on the appeal after framing three relevant issues and on hearing the arguments of respective parties and on perusing the trial Court degree and judgments and dismissed the Appeal No.110/97, dated 27.11.2000. This Court also perused the Judgments of both Courts which has been decided as sustainable. 33. On Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the arguments advanced by the highly competent counsel for their respective parties and on perusing the decree and judgments of the Courts below and on perusing the typed-set of papers and also perusing the additional documents submitted by the appellant and this Court's views mentioned above as (i) to (ix), the above appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.1285 of 1985, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tirunelveli, dated 21.12.1996 and the same was confirmed by the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, in Appeal Suit No.110 of 1997, dated 27.11.2000 is confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.