Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 828 (MAD)

T. Sadhasivam v. S. Uthandi

2022-04-05

S.S.SUNDAR

body2022
JUDGMENT (Prayer: Second Appeal preferred under 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Vridhachalam passed in AS.No.81/2019 dated 21.01.2020 confirming the judgment and decree of the learned I Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore at Vridhachalam dated 05.04.2018 made in OS.No.593/2008.) (1) The unsuccessful defendants 4, 5 10 and 21 in the suit in OS.No.593/2008 on the file of the learned II Additional District Munsif, Virdhachalam, are the appellants in the above Second Appeal. (2) The respondents herein, as plaintiffs, filed the suit in OS.No.593/2008 for declaration of their title in the suit properties and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants in the suit from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. (3) The case of the plaintiffs in the plaint is that the suit properties originally belonged to one Rajakannu and his four sons namely, Subramanian, Rangasamy Padayachi, Gopal and Jagannathan. It is stated that Subramanian, one of the sons of Rajakannu, is the father of plaintiffs/respondents. From the averments in the plaint, it is seen that the legal heirs of Rajakannu were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and other properties by executing mortgage aad other conveyance. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that there was an oral partition in the family among the co-owners and that the suit property was allotted to the plaintiffs who are the legal heirs of Subramanian. (4) The suit was contested by the appellants and other defendants on the ground that they obtained oral sale from the plaintiffs' father and that the plaintiffs' father did not object to the enjoyment of the defendants based on the oral sale. This Court is unable to find a consistent stand taken by the appellants and other defendatns on the basis of any documents in the written statement. (5) The Trial Court, after framing necessary issues, specifically held that the plaintiffs have proved their title obtained from their predecessors in title and that they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The Trial Court also found that the revenue records stand in the names of the plaintiffs. After holding that the plaintiffs have proved their title and enjoyment, the Trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. The Trial Court also found that the revenue records stand in the names of the plaintiffs. After holding that the plaintiffs have proved their title and enjoyment, the Trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for. The Trial Court also specifically framed an issue as to whether the defendants have proved the oral sale pleaded by them. It was found that the defendants have not proved the oral sale from the father of the plaintiffs or their enjoyment on the basis of such oral sale. The appellants have also pleaded that the suit itself the barred by limitation. Having regard to the specific findings on the issue of title and the other evidence, the Trial Court also held that the suit is not barred by limitation. The Trial Court specifically found that the plaintiffs have proved their title in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 and an extent of 3 1/2 cents out of 8 cents in Item No.3. Consequential injunction was also granted only in respect of Item Nos.1 and 2 and 3 ½ cents out of 8 cents described as Item No.3. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the appellants and the other defendants have filed AS.No.81/2019 on the file of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore District at Vridhachalam. The plaintiffs have also filed Cross Appeal in Cross Appeal No.81/2019. (6) The Lower Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court after holding that the plaintiffs have proved their title and the defendants have failed to prove their oral sale or their enjoyment over the suit properties. Aggrieved by the concurrent judgments and decrees of the Courts below, the present Second Appeal is filed by defendants 4, 5, 10 and 21 in the suit in OS.No.593/2008. (7) The appellants have raised the following substantial questions of law in the Memorandum of Grounds of Second Appeal:- a) Whether the appellants put up construction with or without the knowledge of the respondents/plaintiffs and whether the plaintiffs acquiesced in the construction thereby they are stopped from asking for recovery of possession of the said property from the appellants / defendants? b) Whether the appellants are enjoying the property as per the patta issued by the Revenue Authority with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property till today? c) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? b) Whether the appellants are enjoying the property as per the patta issued by the Revenue Authority with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property till today? c) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? d) Whether the suit is properly valued and proper Court fee has been paid or not? e) Whether the appellants have right to adverse possession? f) Whether the appellants had orally purchaed the property? g) Whether the suit is maintainable without seeking delivery of possession of the suit property? h) Whether the suit property schedule is correct or not? i) Whether any issue of fact or any issue of law proved by the respondents/plaintiffs? j) Had not the plaintiffs by their own pleading lost their right to recover possession from the plaintiffs by operation of Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963? (8) The respondents/plaintiffs have filed documents and adduced oral evidence to prove their title. It is seen that on behalf of the plaintiffs, the 2nd plaintiff was examined as PW1 and an independent witness was examined as PW2. Exs.A1 to A14 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs. The defendants marked Exs.B1 to B20 apart from examining two witnesses. From the documents of title and the subsequent encumbrance created by the predecessors in title of the plaintiffs, the Courts below have concurrently resolved the question of title in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs. Even though it is stated that the appellants are enjoying all the suit properties by referring to the House Tax Receipts, the Courts below were unable to find any relevance to the House Tax receipts. The revenue documents filed by the appellants were also considered by the Courts below and found that the documents will not prove the title or enjoyment of the appellant over the suit property. There is no permanent structure in the suit property as per the description of the property in the plaint. Though it is stated that some temporary superstructure was erected by the appellants, the appellants have not proved their possession. In the course of evidence, DW2 admitted that tthey have not produced any document or revenue record to prove their enjoyment. When appellants pleaded oral sale from the father of respondents, DW2 deposed that he did not know when the oral sale was obtained and stated further that the oral sale was from the legal heirs of plaintiffs' grandfather. In the course of evidence, DW2 admitted that tthey have not produced any document or revenue record to prove their enjoyment. When appellants pleaded oral sale from the father of respondents, DW2 deposed that he did not know when the oral sale was obtained and stated further that the oral sale was from the legal heirs of plaintiffs' grandfather. (9) It is well settled that possession follows title in respect of vacant land. The revenue documents filed by the respondents would clearly establish their possession over the suit properties. Though the appellants have filed House Tax Receipts, the learned counsel for the appellants is unable to correlate documents to prove the appellants' possession. In the light of the specific findings of the Courts below on proper appreciation of the documents filed by the appellants before the Court below, this Court is unable to find force in the arguments. When the question of title is decided in favour of the plaintiffs/respondents based on appreciation of evidence by the Courts below, this Court is unable to find any substance in any of the substantial questions of law raised by the appellants in this Second Appeal. (10) The Lower Appellate Court has applied its mind and rendered findings against the appellants on all issues. This is not a case where the Courts below have failed to consider any of the documents filed by the defendants or the findings of the Courts below are perverse. (11) This Court, sitting in the Second Appeal cannot re-appreciate the evidence and reverse the judgments and decrees of the Courts below merely because a different view is also possible. (12) Since the substantial questions of law have no substance particularly having regard to the findings rendered by the Courts below, this Court is unable to entertain the Second Appeal. (13) In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.