Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 3370 (MAD)

Veluchamy v. Aathimoolathevar

2019-12-09

R.SUBRAMANIAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : R. SUBRAMANIAN, J. 1. The Plaintiff in O.S. No. 290 of 2006 whose suit for declaration and injunction with reference to five items of properties, was decreed in respect if Item Nos. 3 to 5 and dismissed in respect of Item Nos. 1 and 2 by the trial Court, on the said judgment and decree, being confirmed on Appeal in A.S. No. 21 of 2013, has come up with the present Second Appeal. 2. According to the plaintiff, the suit properties were purchased by his father Aathimoolathevar, son of Pavanasathevar under sale-deeds, dated 6.1.1948 and 29.1.1948 and the said purchaser was favoured with a patta in Patta No. 97 in respect of the land purchased by him. The said Aathimoolathevar was in possession of the said land till his date of death. On his death, the property devolved on the plaintiff, his only son. Contending that the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the property pursuant to the title conferred on his father under two sale-deeds referred to supra, the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Since the defendant attempted to dispute his title and sought to interfere with his possession. 3. The suit was resisted by the defendant contending that the suit properties did not belong to Aathimoolathevar S/o Pavanasa Thevar. According to the defendant, the suit property belonged to Melavasaga Thevar S/o Aathimoola Thevar. He has been granted patta in Patta No. 197 and he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The said Melavasaga Thevar died leaving behind his only son Ramachandran. The defendant had purchased the properties from Ramachandran under Sale-Deed dated 12.2.2004. After the purchase, the revenue records were mutated in the name of the defendant on 21.4.2010 and patta was issued to the defendant. The defendant would also specifically plead that the two sale-deeds, dated 6.1.1948 and 29.1.1948 relied upon by the plaintiff did not relate to the suit properties. An additional written statement was filed stating the plaintiff has no title to the property in S. Nos. 428/5 and 428/8 and 428/10 also. 4. At trial, the plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and two other witnesses namely, PW-2 and PW-3 were examined on his side and Ex. A1 to Ex. A10 were marked. The defendant was examined as DW-1 and Exhibits Ex. B1 to 4 were marked on the side of the defendant. Ex. 428/5 and 428/8 and 428/10 also. 4. At trial, the plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and two other witnesses namely, PW-2 and PW-3 were examined on his side and Ex. A1 to Ex. A10 were marked. The defendant was examined as DW-1 and Exhibits Ex. B1 to 4 were marked on the side of the defendant. Ex. X1-Settlement Register was marked through the official. 5. The Courts below, upon appreciation of evidence on record, concluded that since DW-1 had deposed that he is not claiming title in respect of S. Nos. 428/5, 428/8 and 428/10 and he does not have any objection for grant of a decree in favour of the plaintiff in respect of those lands and confined the dispute only with regard to the land in S. Nos. 428/7 and 428/9, the suit could be decreed in respect of those lands shown as items 3 to 5 in the Plaint. As regards the lands in S. Nos. 428/7 and 428/9, the Courts below have found that the Correlation Register produced revealed that the land in S. No. 428/7 and S. No. 428/9 stands in the name of the predecessor in interest of the vendor of the defendant. It was also concluded that the plaintiff has not established the ownership of his vendor namely, Aathimoolathevar, son of Pavanasa Thevar. On the said findings, the trial Court dismissed the suit in respect of land in S. Nos. 428/7 and 428/9 which were shown as item Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 21 of 2012. The lower Appellate Court, upon reconsideration of the evidence on record, concurred with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The Plaintiff, is therefore, on Second Appeal. 6. I have heard Mr. F.X. Eugene, learned counsel for the appellant. 7. Mr. F.X. Eugene learned counsel for the appellant would contend that PW-3 is the vendor of the defendant and had deposed that he did not convey the land in S. No. 428/7 and S. No. 428/9 under sale-deed, dated 11.2.2004 marked as Ex. B4. According to the learned counsel, the said evidence would show that the defendant had no title to the property in S. No. 428/7 and S. No. 428/9. B4. According to the learned counsel, the said evidence would show that the defendant had no title to the property in S. No. 428/7 and S. No. 428/9. He would also further submit that the mistake in the Settlement Register that had occurred during the Inam Abolition Proceedings cannot deprive the plaintiff of the title validly conveyed on him on 6.1.1948 and 29.1.1948 under Ex. A1 and Ex. A2. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. PW-2 being the executant of Ex. B4 sale-deed was precluded from letting in evidence against the recitals in respect of the documents under Indian Evidence Act. His claim that he did not convey the property covered under Ex. B4 to the defendant, cannot be accepted by the Court. The Courts below have rightly rejected the evidence of PW-3. The conclusion of the Courts below cannot be termed as perverse. I do not find any question of law much less substantial questions of law to enable me to entertain this Second Appeal. 8. Hence this Second Appeal is dismissed, without being admitted. However, in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed.