Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1693 (MAD)

M. Krishnan v. M. Rajeshwari

2019-06-19

T.RAVINDRAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2018 passed in A.S.No.52 of 2017 on the file of the Subordinate Judge at Coonoor, confirming the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2017 made in O.S. No. 112 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Coonoor.) 1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree dated 29.06.2018, passed in A.S.No.52 of 2017, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Coonoor, confirming the judgment and decree dated 07.06.2017, passed in O.S. No. 112 of 2010, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Coonoor. 2. For the sake of convenience, parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court. 3. The suit has been laid by the plaintiffs against the defendants seeking the reliefs of declaration, possession and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. 4. The suit property is described to be consisting of 0.10 acres of land with houses in old survey No.121/1A, new survey No.894/2A of the suit village within the specific boundaries. Now, according to the plaintiffs, they derived title to the suit property by virtue of the sale deed dated 03.01.2007 and contending that the defendants are not entitled to the suit property, however unlawfully intruded into the suit property without any entitlement and put up the unauthorized construction therein, hence, according to the plaintiffs, they had been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs. 5. In brief, the defendants resisted the plaintiffs' case contending that they are not entitled to the suit property by virtue of the sale deed dated 03.01.2007 and according to the defendants, the plaintiffs' vendors are entitled to only 0.06 acres and 1/16 cents in the suit survey number and not more than that and therefore, the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim title to the suit property measuring an extent of 0.10 acres and hence, according to the defendants, they are in possession and enjoyment of their respective portions by virtue of the title deeds projected by them and accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit. 6. Based on the materials placed on record by the respective parties and the submissions made, the Courts below were pleased to dismiss the plaintiffs' suit. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has been preferred. 7. 6. Based on the materials placed on record by the respective parties and the submissions made, the Courts below were pleased to dismiss the plaintiffs' suit. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has been preferred. 7. As abovenoted, the plaintiffs' claim title to the suit property as described in the plaint by virtue of the sale deed dated 03.01.2007, the copy of which document has been marked as Ex.A2. On a perusal of Ex.A2, as rightly found and determined by the Courts below, it is found that there are clear recitals that the plaintiffs' vendors are entitled only to an extent of 0.06 1/16 acres in the suit survey number and in such view of the matter, when the plaintiffs' vendors are entitled only to the abovesaid extent, it does not stand to reason as to how they would be entitled to convey 0.10 acres with buildings in favour of the plaintiffs. In this connection, the second plaintiff, examined as PW1, during the cross examination, has admitted that his vendors are entitled only to 0.06 1/16 acres of land in the suit survey number. Similarly, the power of attorney agent of the plaintiffs' vendor, who had been examined as PW2, has also admitted during the course of his evidence that as per the original title deed dated 14.10.1947, the plaintiffs' vendors are entitled only to 0.06 1/16 acres of land and accordingly, when the documents relied upon by the plaintiffs and the evidence adduced by them in the matter go to point out that the plaintiffs' vendors are entitled only to 0.06 1/16 acres of land and not more than that, it does not stand to reason as to how the plaintiffs would be entitled to claim title to an extent of 0.10 acre in the suit survey number based on Ex.A2 sale deed. 8. Considering the documents projected by the defendants and as rightly found and determined by the Courts below, it is found that the defendants are entitled to the extent acquired by them through their respective sale deeds and in such view of the matter, when the plaintiffs are not entitled to the extent of 0.10 acres of land in the suit survey number, the claim title of the plaintiffs to the suit property based on Ex.A2 sale deed has been rightly discountenanced by the Courts below. 9. 9. In addition to that, considering the earlier suit in O.S.No.184/2006, the copy of the suit register extract marked as Ex.B7, it is found that one of the plaintiffs' vendors, who have laid the suit for permanent injunction against B.K. Murthy and others, had levied the suit only to an extent of 0.06 1/16 acres of land and accordingly, when it is found that the plaintiffs' vendors in the earlier litigation had been litigating only the extent of the property measuring 0.06 1/16 acres land and not 0.10 acres of land, the Courts below are fully justified in holding that the plaintiffs are not entitled to claim title to the extent of 0.10 acres of land as described in the plaint schedule. 10. In the light of the abovesaid position, particularly, when it is found that the defendants had acquired their properties much prior to the acquisition of the property by the plaintiffs, in such view of the matter, the plaintiffs should have endeavored to verify the title of the vendors in respect of the suit property and thereafter should have proceeded in acquiring the property from them and when on the materials placed on record, it is found that the plaintiffs' vendors are entitled to only an extent of 0.06 1/16 acres and not more than that, in such view of the matter, the claim of the plaintiffs that they have acquired title to the extent of 0.10 acres of land by virtue of Ex.A2 sale deed does not merit acceptance. As rightly found by the Courts below, the documents projected by the plaintiffs, being revenue documents, by themselves, we cannot determine that the plaintiffs are in the valid possession and enjoyment of the 0.10 acres of land and accordingly, the Courts below are found to have assessed and analyzed the materials placed on record rightly and come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs have failed to establish their title to the suit property as well as their claim of encroachment on the part of the defendants in the suit property and in such view of the matter, the Courts below are found to be fully justified in dismissing the plaintiffs' suit. 11. 11. In the light of the above said factual matrix, it is seen that the Courts below had analyzed the materials rightly and in the correct perspective determined the issues involved in the matter and the controversy between the parties centering on factual aspects and the same having been correctly determined by the Courts below and when the same do not warrant any interference, in such view of the matter, the question of involvement of any substantial question of law does not arise in the matter and the second appeal is found to be devoid of merits. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.