Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 568 (MAD)

P. Ramanathan v. Backiyam(died)

2022-03-04

R.THARANI

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Appeal Suit is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the decree and judgment in A.S.No.42 of 2011 passed by the Subordinate Court, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District dated 11.10.2013 confirming the decree and judgment in O.S.No.152 of 2007 passed by the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi dated 25.02.2011.) 1. This appeal is filed against the order in A.S.No.42 of 2011 passed by the Subordinate Court, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District dated 11.10.2013, confirming the decree and judgment in O.S.No. 152 of 2007 passed by the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi, dated 25.02.2011. 2. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The respondents 1 to 3 are the defendants in the suit and the respondents 4 to 6 are the legal representatives of the deceased first respondent. 3. A brief substance of the plaint is as follows: The suit property belonged to the father of the plaintiff and his brother Jeyaraman Chettiar. The suit property was allotted to the share of the father of the plaintiff. The father of the plaintiff had three sons and one daughter. The second defendant is the daughter. The second defendant is the sister of the plaintiff. Since sufficient sridhana articles were given to the second defendant, the male issues entered into a partition on 24.03.1981 and they executed a family arrangement document in the presence of witnesses. 4. In the partition, the suit property was allotted to the share of the plaintiff. On 07.04.2007, the defendants disturbed the possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff seek for a prayer of declaration of title and for permanent injunction against the defendants and their men. 5. A brief substance of the written statement filed by the defendants 2 and 3, adopted by first defendant is as follows: In the description of the property, the survey number and the boundaries are wrongly stated. The first schedule survey No. 100/9b the four boundaries are wrongly stated. The second schedule, there is no such sub division as survey No.122/2C, in the revenue records. The four boundaries mentioned in the second schedule is also not correct. The properties are not in the possession of the plaintiff. The properties are not allotted to the plaintiff. The first schedule property belonged to another brother of the second defendant by name Nadimuthu. The second defendant purchased the property from Nadimuthu, through a sale deed dated 25.07.1982 and she got patta in her name. The properties are not in the possession of the plaintiff. The properties are not allotted to the plaintiff. The first schedule property belonged to another brother of the second defendant by name Nadimuthu. The second defendant purchased the property from Nadimuthu, through a sale deed dated 25.07.1982 and she got patta in her name. She planted Eucalyptus trees and she had cut the grown up trees three times and that she is in enjoyment of the property. There is no Survey Number as 122/2C and the plaintiff is not in the possession of any such property and prayed this petition to be dismissed. 6. The trial Court has framed the following issues: i) whether the plaintiff is entitled to a relief of declaration and injunction ; ii) what are the other reliefs? 7. Two witnesses were examined and six documents were marked on the side of the plaintiff. Two witnesses were examined and 16 documents were marked on the side on the side of the defendant. After trial, the trial Court has dismissed the suit. 8. Against the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.42 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Pudukottai. 9. The Subordinate Court framed the following issues: i) Whether the appeal is to be allowed? After hearing both sides, the appeal was dismissed by the Subordinate Court, Pudukottai. 10. Against the order of the first Appellate Court, the petitioner filed this Second Appeal. 11. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law : i)whether the judgment and decree of the Courts below are sustainable since the respondents / defendants have not proved the title of their predecessors by placing relevant records both oral and documentary evidence? ii)whether both the Courts below are right in dismissing the suit in favour of the respondents / defendants when Ex.A6 family arrangement was clearly proved ? iii)whether both the Courts below are correct in dismissing the suit based on the Revenue records Exhibit B2 to B16? 12. Issue No.1: (i)On the side of the appellant, it is stated that originally the property belonged to the grandfather of the plaintiff by name Muthukaruppan Chettiar. Muthukaruppan Chettiar has two sons. One Jeyaraman Chettiar and Ponraman Chettiar. Ponraman Chettiar had three sons by name, Ramanathan, Arunachalam and Nadimuthu and one daughter by name Alageshwari who is the second defendant in the suit. Muthukaruppan Chettiar has two sons. One Jeyaraman Chettiar and Ponraman Chettiar. Ponraman Chettiar had three sons by name, Ramanathan, Arunachalam and Nadimuthu and one daughter by name Alageshwari who is the second defendant in the suit. After the death of Ponraman Chettiar, his sons partitioned the property by way of a family arrangement dated 24.03.1981. The suit property was allotted to the share of the plaintiff and the family arrangement was marked as Ex.A6. 13. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the second defendant has created a false sale deed as if she has purchased the property from the brother of the plaintiff by name Nadimuthu. Based on that false sale deed, the second defendant obtained patta Ex.B4 and she paid the taxes. The tax receipts, marked as B6 to B16 are based only on the patta. Revenue records are not documents of title. Ex.B1 sale deed is not valid since the seller of the property is not the owner of the property. The plaintiff has no knowledge of the mutation of the revenue records in the name of the second defendant. The trial Court has observed that there was no documents to prove that the second schedule property belonged to the plaintiff and that there was no Sub division in Survey No. 122/2. The trial Court came to a wrong conclusion that the defendant is entitled to the property on the basis of revenue records. Out of the total extent of 115 cents, Arunachalam was allotted 55 cents and the plaintiff and Nadimuthu were allotted 30 cents each. Ex.A6 was not properly appreciated by the trial Court and by the first Appellate Court and pray the appeal to be allowed. 14. On the side of the respondent it is stated that the second defendant purchased the property from her brother Nadimuthu through a sale deed dated 27.05.1982. After the registration of the sale deed, patta was transferred to her name. She was in possession and enjoyment of the property and she is paying the taxes. The partition deed Ex.A6 is not a registered document. It is only an unregistered agreement. The document was not proved. An unregistered document need not be taken into consideration and the four boundaries mentioned in the Ex.A6 were not tallying the four boundaries of the first schedule property. The partition deed Ex.A6 is not a registered document. It is only an unregistered agreement. The document was not proved. An unregistered document need not be taken into consideration and the four boundaries mentioned in the Ex.A6 were not tallying the four boundaries of the first schedule property. There is no such sub division as mentioned in the second schedule property. The plaintiff who is claiming to be in possession, is not aware of the four boundaries whereas the defendant proved the title and possession through Ex.B1 to B16 and pray the appeal to be dismissed. 15. It is the duty of the plaintiff to prove the suit but the appellant herein has raised a question stating that the defendants have not proved the title of their predecessors. There is no necessity for the defendant to prove title or possession and hence this question raised by the appellant is not sustainable. Issue No.2 and 3 16. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that Ex.A6 family arrangement clearly reveals that the property belongs to the plaintiff and not to the predecessors of the second defendant. 17. The family arrangement Ex.A6 is an unregistered document dated 13.04.1981. Even in the year 2001, the plaintiff is aware of the transfer of patta in the name of the second respondent. The certified copies of the documents Ex.A1 to 5 were obtained by the plaintiff, on 08.08.2001, but the suit was filed only in the year 2007. Plaintiff has failed to file the suit immediately after he came to the knowledge of the sale deed. 18. The four boundaries and the description of the property was questioned by the defendants in the written statement. But the plaintiff did not come forward to rectify the defects. Except Ex.A6, no other document was filed to prove either the title or possession of the plaintiff. It is the duty of the plaintiff to prove the case. The defendants has filed Ex.B1, a sale deed dated 27.05.1982 and Ex.B4 to B 16 revenue records. There is no necessity for the defendants to prove the case. There is no necessity for deciding the title of the defendants. In total Ex.A1 to 6, are insufficient to decide the title of the plaintiff. The trial Court has dismissed the suit since the description of property is not correct and Ex.A6 is not properly proved. 19. There is no necessity for the defendants to prove the case. There is no necessity for deciding the title of the defendants. In total Ex.A1 to 6, are insufficient to decide the title of the plaintiff. The trial Court has dismissed the suit since the description of property is not correct and Ex.A6 is not properly proved. 19. The questions raised by the appellant are only questions of fact and not questions of law. In the light of the above circumstances, there is no reason sufficient enough to interfere with the orders of the trial Court which was subsequently, confirmed by the first Appellate Court. For the above said reasons, this Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.