Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2151 (MAD)

Akilandam v. Loganathan (died)

2019-08-22

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The defendants in O.S.No.61of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Katpadi, are the appellants herein. 2. O.S.No.61 of 2010 had been filed by the plaintiffs for declaration of title and for delivery of possession and also for enquiry under Order XX Rule 12 of C.P.C., with respect to mesne profits and for the costs of the suit. By Judgment dated 06.02.2012, the learned District Munsif, Katpadi, dismissed the suit. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed A.S.No.47 of 2012. This came up for consideration before the Sub Court, Vellore, and by Judgment dated 01.09.2014, the appeal was allowed and the Judgment of the Trial Court in O.S.No.61 of 2010 was set aside. Aggrieved by the said Judgment in A.S.No.47 of 2012, the defendants have filed the present Second Appeal. 3. The Second Appeal had been admitted on 17.03.2015, on the following two substantial questions of Law:- “1. Whether the First Appellate Court was right in decreeing the suit in its entirety, though the plaintiffs had produced title deeds only in respect of the suit property item Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 alone and no title deeds have been produced in respect of the suit property item Nos.4, 6 and 7? And 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession in respect of the suit property item Nos.4, 6 and 7 for which the plaintiffs have not proved title?” O.S.No.61 of 2010 (District Munsif Court, Katpadi):- 4. It was the case of the plaintiff Loganathan, that the suit schedule properties described as item Nos.1 to 6 were his self-acquired properties purchased under various registered sale deeds from and out of his personal savings. Loganathan died pending the suit. He claimed to be in possession and in enjoyment of the suit property. He also claimed that item No.7 was an ancestral property. Claiming exclusive title over the item Nos.1 to 6, the suit had been filed for declaration of title and consequential reliefs. On his death pending the suit, his legal representatives had been brought on record. The suit properties have been described as follows: SCHEDULE Vellore District, Katpadi Taluk, Karasamangalam Village, 1. S.No.391/3 Ac.1.64 kist Rs.2.90 with well and electric service connection No.5 situated thereon; 2. S.No.431/3 Ac.0.59 out of it acre 0.15 kist Rs.0.50; 3. S.No.425/1 Ac.1.71 in which 0.45 Acre kist Rs.0.78; 4. S.No.431/2 Acre 0.73 kist Rs.1.46 Patta No.820; 5. The suit properties have been described as follows: SCHEDULE Vellore District, Katpadi Taluk, Karasamangalam Village, 1. S.No.391/3 Ac.1.64 kist Rs.2.90 with well and electric service connection No.5 situated thereon; 2. S.No.431/3 Ac.0.59 out of it acre 0.15 kist Rs.0.50; 3. S.No.425/1 Ac.1.71 in which 0.45 Acre kist Rs.0.78; 4. S.No.431/2 Acre 0.73 kist Rs.1.46 Patta No.820; 5. 3/8 share right in the well situated in S.No.425/2; 6. S.No.425/3 Ac.0.76 kist Rs.1.52 Patta No.823; and 7. Natham S.No.419/41 hectares 0.01.06 kist Rs.2.00 tiled house and hut thereon. 5. In the written statement, it had been stated that the defendant had obtained an earlier order of injunction against the plaintiff in O.S.No.6 of 1997. It has been stated that there were three suits relating to the same properties. It was also stated that the properties were the separate properties of the mother Rajammal, who was in possession and in enjoyment. It was stated that the plaintiff, Loganathan, had joined the Army and did not reside in the suit properties. The daughters alone resided there. It was also stated that four settlement deeds have been executed by the mother Rajammal in favour of the daughters. It was also stated that the plaintiff, Loganathan had no right title or interest over the properties. It was therefore stated that the suit should be dismissed. 6. The learned District Munsif framed the following issues for trial:- “1. Whether the 1st plaintiff was the absolute owner of the suit properties? 2. Whether the 1st plaintiff was in possession of the suit properties prior to filing of the suit? 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration possession and mesne profits? 4. What relief the plaintiffs are entitled to?” 7. The 5th plaintiff, L.Prasad, examined himself as PW-1 and marked Exs.A1 to A15. On the side of the defendants, three witnesses were examined namely, Subramani as DW-1, Rajammal as DW-2 and Santha as DW-3. They marked Exs.B1 to B7. The learned District Munsif, Katpadi, held that Ex.A1 was the Sale deed executed by one Govindammal in favour of Chengayya Naidu, who inturn executed Ex.A2 Sale deed in favour of Rajammal and the plaintiff Loganathan. It was further found that the 1st and 3rd defendants namely, Akilandam and Sakunthala have become entitled to the suit item Nos.1,4,6 and 7 of the properties, in view of the subsequent settlement deeds Exs.B4 to B7 executed in their favour. It was further found that the 1st and 3rd defendants namely, Akilandam and Sakunthala have become entitled to the suit item Nos.1,4,6 and 7 of the properties, in view of the subsequent settlement deeds Exs.B4 to B7 executed in their favour. It was also found that the remaining properties were in the possession of DW-2 Rajammal. It was held that the 1st plaintiff was entitled to the 1st , 2nd and 3rd items of suit properties along with DW-2. It was also found that none of the plaintiffs were in possession of the suit properties. It was held that the suit properties were joint family properties of the 1st plaintiff, DW-2 and 1st and 3rd defendants. Consequently, it was held that the plaintiffs have to approach the Court for the relief of partition and a declaration of title cannot be granted. Finally, the learned District Munsif, Katpadi, dismissed the suit. A.S.No.47 of 2012(Sub Court, Vellore):- 8. The plaintiffs then filed an appeal. The learned Sub Judge, reappraised the evidence. Ex.A2 was the Sale deed in favour of the deceased 1st plaintiff, Loganathan, who was a minor aged about 9 years at the time of purchase and was represented by his mother/guardian Rajammal. Ex.A5 was the Sale deed in favour of Loganathan, dated 21.06.1967. Ex.A6 was the sale deed by Loganathan in favour of Thangavelu dated 16.11.1967 and thereafter by Ex.A8, Thangavelu had again sold the property back to Loganathan by Sale deed dated 01.04.1974. The learned Sub Judge, held that Loganathan had obtained absolute title under Ex.A2. It was held that once he attained the age of majority, his guardian, Rajammal, was automatically discharged. It was also held that since Loganathan was the absolute owner, the Settlement deeds Exs.B4 and B6 in favour of Sakunthala and Akilandam were non est in law. Similarly, the Settlement deeds Exs.B5 and B7 with respect to other properties executed by Rajammal in favour of Sakunthala and Akilandam were also held to be non est since the entire properties were covered under S.No.419/41 measuring 0.01.6 hectares which belonged absolutely to Loganathan. The learned Sub Judge granted declaration of title with respect to item Nos.1 to 6. However, item No.7 was declared to be a joint family property. With the above observations, the learned Sub Judge, Vellore, allowed the First Appeal and reversed the judgment of the Trial Court. S.A.No.138 of 2015:- 9. The learned Sub Judge granted declaration of title with respect to item Nos.1 to 6. However, item No.7 was declared to be a joint family property. With the above observations, the learned Sub Judge, Vellore, allowed the First Appeal and reversed the judgment of the Trial Court. S.A.No.138 of 2015:- 9. The defendants then filed the present Second Appeal before this Court. The Second Appeal had been admitted on 17.03.2015, on the following two substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the First Appellate Court was right in decreeing the suit in its entirety, though the plaintiffs had produced title deeds only in respect of the suit property item Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 alone and no title deeds have been produced in respect of the suit property item Nos.4, 6 and 7? And 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession in respect of the suit property item Nos.4, 6 and 7 for which the plaintiffs have not proved title?” 10. Heard arguments advanced by Mr.T.Dhanyakumar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.T.R.Rajaraman for Ms.P.Veena Suresh, learned counsel for the 2nd to 7th respondents, and Mr.K.Velangkanni, learned counsel for the 10th respondent. 11. For the sake of convenience the parties would be referred as plaintiffs and defendants. 12. The plaintiffs are the respondents herein and the defendants are the appellants herein. 13. With respect to the first substantial question of law, a perusal of the records reveal that the plaintiffs have produced Ex.A8 which is the title deed in favour of Loganathan with respect to item No.4 of the suit property. The item No.4 of the suit property is the land in S.No.431/2 measuring 0.73 acre on the Patta No.820 in Karasamangalam Village, Katpadi Taluk, Vellore District. Ex.A8, is the sale deed executed by Thangavelu in favour of Loganathan, dated 01.04.1974. A perusal of the schedule to Ex.A8 shows that it also relates to S.No.431/2 measuring 0.73 acre of land and also to other lands. It is trite in law to point out that title vests on the party who produces necessary documents to establish his title. The sale deed in Ex.A8 has conferred such title on the deceased 1st plaintiff Loganathan. Consequently, with respect to title to item No.4, which is actually an issue on fact, it is held that the plaintiffs have produced Ex.A8, title deed. The sale deed in Ex.A8 has conferred such title on the deceased 1st plaintiff Loganathan. Consequently, with respect to title to item No.4, which is actually an issue on fact, it is held that the plaintiffs have produced Ex.A8, title deed. However, with respect to item No.6, it is an admitted fact that Loganathan had joint title along with his mother Rajammal. Consequently, declaration of absolute title with respect to item No.6 cannot be granted. Item No.7 is a joint family property and again absolute title cannot be declared in favour of the plaintiffs. The first substantial question of law which is actually an issue of fact is answered that the plaintiffs have produced title deed, Ex.A8 with respect to item No.4 and the First Appellate Court was therefore correct in granting declaration of title with respect to item No.4. But the Judgment has to be interfered with, in so far as the item Nos. 6 and 7 are concerned and the plaintiffs have to work their remedies in accordance with law with respect to those two items of suit properties. 14. The second substantial question of law is whether the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession with respect to item Nos. 4, 6 and 7. Again when the plaintiffs have produced Ex.A8 which is the document of title with respect to item No.4, I hold that the plaintiffs are entitled for recovery of possession for item No.4 property. The First Appellate Court had given very cogent reasons for negativing the claim of the defendants for title on the basis of the settlement deeds. However, substantial question of law has not been raised on that finding. Since item Nos.6 and 7 are not the absolute properties of the plaintiffs. I hold that the plaintiffs will be entitled for recovery of possession only with respect to item No.4 and the parties will have to work out their remedies with respect to item Nos.6 and 7. 15. Consequently, the Second Appeal is allowed only with respect to item No.6 of the suit property, the title of which admittedly stood in the name of both Loganathan and Rajammal. Item No.7 is a the joint family property. The second appeal is dismissed with respect to item Nos.1 to 5 of the suit properties. Consequently, the Second Appeal is partly allowed with the above observations. No order as to costs. Item No.7 is a the joint family property. The second appeal is dismissed with respect to item Nos.1 to 5 of the suit properties. Consequently, the Second Appeal is partly allowed with the above observations. No order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are close.