Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2672 (MAD)

Perumal v. Raji Gounder

2018-08-29

T.RAVINDRAN

body2018
JUDGMENT : Second Appeal Nos. 795 and 796 of 2005 are directed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No. 55 of 2002 and A.S. No. 54 of 2002 respectively dated 24.11.2004 on the file of Subordinate Court, Dharmapuri, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 278 of 1998 and O.S. No. 290 of 1998 dated 07.06.2002 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri. 2. The second appeals have been admitted on the following substantial question of law. "a. Whether the lower appellate court's judgment reversing the judgment of the trial court, in a suit for declaration for title, for non filing of patta, non filing of original documents though certified copies of registered documents have been filed is legal?" 3. Considering the scope of the issues involved between the parties as regards the subject matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail. 4. O.S. No. 278 of 1998 has been laid for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction. O.S. No. 290 of 1998 has been laid for the relief of permanent injunction. 5. Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court. 6. The plaintiffs trace their title to the suit property based on Exs.A1 to A3 sale deeds. Briefly stated, according to the plaintiffs, the suit property had been acquired by Nanjan from Nallappa Naidu and others by way of a sale deed dated 31.03.1967 and the said document has been marked as Ex.A2. Further, it is stated that Perumal had acquired the suit property from Nanjan by way of a sale deed dated 17.12.1967 and the said document has been marked as Ex.A1. Further according to the plaintiffs' case, the plaintiffs' mother had purchased the suit property from Perumal and others by way of a sale deed dated 13.12.1971, which document has come to be marked as Ex.A3. Exs.A2 and A3 are the certified copies of the sale deeds and Ex.A1 is the original sale deed. Further according to the plaintiffs' case, the plaintiffs' mother had purchased the suit property from Perumal and others by way of a sale deed dated 13.12.1971, which document has come to be marked as Ex.A3. Exs.A2 and A3 are the certified copies of the sale deeds and Ex.A1 is the original sale deed. Accordingly, it is stated by the plaintiffs that the suit property have been in their possession and enjoyment from the days of their predecessors in title as abovestated and it is contended that the plaintiffs had obtained patta in respect of the suit property and enjoying the same and accordingly as the defendants had attempted to interfere with their possession and enjoyment of the suit property, it is stated that the plaintiffs had been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs. 7. Resisting the plaintiffs' case, the defendants would only project the patta marked as Ex.B1, which has come to be issued under the updating registry scheme and other than Ex.B1 patta, there is no other acceptable and reliable document placed by the defendants to trace their title to the suit property. 8. As rightly determined by the trial court, patta cannot be construed as a document of title and in such view of the matter, the patta marked as Ex.B1, relied upon by the defendants, cannot be the sole basis for upholding the defendants claim of title to the suit property. 9. As above seen, Plaintiffs have traced title from their predecessors in interest right from 1967 onwards and accordingly claimed to be in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property. But the defendants seems to have obtained the patta in their favour i.e. in the name of the temple, under the updating registry scheme and accordingly challenging the same, i.e., that the patta could not be issued in favour of the defendants in respect of the property acquired by the plaintiffs as above detailed and claiming that the suit property is in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs, it is seen that necessary representation had been given by the plaintiffs to the revenue authorities, which document has come to be marked as Ex.A4. Accordingly it is seen that following the same, the Tahsildhar had issued a notice to one and all including the plaintiffs and the defendants to put forth their claims of ownership in respect of the suit property and this could be seen from the notices issued by the Tahsildhar marked as Exs. A5 and A6. Accordingly, after conducting an enquiry, it is found that the revenue authorities acknowledging that the patta had been wrongly issued in favour of the defendants under the updating registry scheme, passed an order dated 04.09.2000, marked as Ex.A7, to delete the name of the defendants' temple and issue the patta in favour of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property. Accordingly, it is further seen that the patta had been issued in favour of the plaintiffs marked as Ex.A8. Thus, it is found that as rightly put forth by the plaintiffs' counsel, when the suit property are found to be the independent property belonging to the plaintiffs' and their predecessors in title and accordingly the suit property had changed hands to various persons and finally the plaintiffs' mother had come to acquire the same by way of Ex.A3 sale deed and when the defendants have projected only the patta issued in their favour under the updating registry scheme and when the same had been subsequently cancelled as above seen, it is found that the defendants cannot be allowed to resist the plaintiffs' claim of title, possession and enjoyment of the suit property as put forth by them. 10. 10. In the light of the abovesaid position, it is seen that the chitta and adangal extracts, which documents have come to be marked as Exs.B2 to B4 produced by the defendants, would also not in any manner advance the case of the defendants, particularly, when it is found that the following the proceedings of the revenue officials, marked as Ex.A7, when it is found that the name of the defendants' temple had been deleted from the patta and adangal extracts produced by the defendants and instead name of the plaintiffs had come to be incorporated therein, thus it is found that negativing the claim of title, possession and enjoyment of defendants in respect of the suit property, it is found that the patta and adangal extracts issued in favour of the defendants' temple had been subsequently converted and changed in the name of the plaintiffs and thus it is seen that as rightly determined by the trial court, the plaintiffs have clearly established their claim of title, possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 11. The first appellate court seems to have non-suited the plaintiffs on the sole ground that the plaintiffs have not marked the originals of the sale deeds marked Exs.A2 & A3. However, as rightly putforth by the plaintiffs' counsel, considering the trace of title of the suit property, when the defendants are unable to place any claim of ownership to the suit property other than marking the patta issued under the updating registry scheme and when it is found that the plaintiffs had been able to produce one of their title deeds in original, no doubt, they are unable to produce the originals of the other two sale deeds, but considering the description of the property comprised in sale deeds Exs.A1 to A3 and the change of the ownership of the same to various hands under the abovesaid sale deeds and finally when it is found that the plaintiffs' mother had acquired the ownership of the same and following the same, it is found that the patta had also been issued in favour of the plaintiffs after deleting the names of the defendants as above discussed, the first appellate court is found to be not justified in rejecting the plaintiffs case on the sole footing that they have failed to mark the originals of their two title deeds projected by them. 12. 12. The substantial question of law formulated in this second appeal is accordingly answered in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. 13. For the reasons aforestated, the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No. 55 of 2002 and A.S. No. 54 of 2002 respectively dated 24.11.2004 on the file of Subordinate Court, Dharmapuri, are set aside and the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 278 of 1998 and O.S. No. 290 of 1998 dated 07.06.2002 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri are confirmed. Accordingly the second appeals are allowed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.