Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 669 (MAD)

Bala v. V. Marimuthu (Died)

2025-01-29

T.V.THAMILSELVI

body2025
JUDGMENT : The appellant has filed this appeal against the portion of the judgment and decree dated 08.04.2021 passed in O.S. No. 9123 of 2019 by the learned XVI Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were ranked in the original suit. 3. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in Suit O.S. No. 9123 of 2019 (C.S. No. 1168 of 2009) on the file of the XVI Additional City Civil Court, Chennai. The plaintiff/appellant filed the said suit before the trial court seeking a declaration, permanent injunction, mandatory injunction, compensation, and other consequential reliefs against 11 defendants. The suit was contested by defendants 1, 2, and 4 to 11. After hearing both sides and considering the evidence on record, the learned trial judge partly allowed the suit. The court declared the plaintiff as the absolute owner of a vacant land measuring 2,119 sq. ft., excluding a portion in the B-schedule property, namely 280 sq. ft., described as running 70 feet East to West, 3.7 feet North to South on the eastern side, and 4.4 feet North to South on the western side, situated on the northern corner of the A-schedule property. The relief of a permanent injunction was granted to this extent alone. However, the reliefs of mandatory injunction and compensation were dismissed. 4. Challenging the said findings, the plaintiff preferred this appeal on the following grounds: i. The judgment and decree of the trial court refusing to grant title, permanent injunction mandatory injunction and compensation to the Appellant herein with regard to suit schedule 'B' property, is contrary to law, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. ii. The trial court committed an error in rejecting the title of the appellant in respect of suit schedule 'B' property being part of suit schedule 'A' property admeasuring 280 sq.ft situated on the northern corner of Schedule 'A' property admeasuring 2399 sq.ft. comprised in Survey No. 145/1, then T.S.No.30, currently T.S.No.33, Old Block No.41, New Block No.36, Thiruvalluvar Street, Velachery, Chennai-600 042. iii. The trial court, having accepted the title of the appellant with reference suit schedule 'A' property admeasuring 2119 sq.ft. based on the documents of title viz. comprised in Survey No. 145/1, then T.S.No.30, currently T.S.No.33, Old Block No.41, New Block No.36, Thiruvalluvar Street, Velachery, Chennai-600 042. iii. The trial court, having accepted the title of the appellant with reference suit schedule 'A' property admeasuring 2119 sq.ft. based on the documents of title viz. (i) Ex.B1 Release Deed dated 09.08.1966 registered as Documerz No.2583/1966 executed by V.P.Sundaram in favour of his brother P.Govindarajan (vendor of the appellant), (ii) Ex.A2 sale deed dated 14.11.1994 registered as Document No.412/1994 executed by P.Govindarajan to and in favour of the appellant, (iii) Ex.A3 Exchange deed dated 09.01.1997 registered as Documem No.62/1997 executed between P.Govindarajan and the appellant exchanging 32 feet and 33 sq.ft. respectively in the same Survey Number for convenient enjoyment, ought to have granted the relief of declaration of title to the appellant in respect of the balance land admeasuring 280 sq.ft. being the suit schedule 'B' property forming part of suit schedule "A" property. iv. The findings of the trial court had literally left the suit schedule 'B' property in O.S.No.9123/2019 with no owner and the question of title in limbo. v. The trial court has entirely ignored Ex.B1 being the Release Deed dated 09.08.1966 registered as Document No.2583/1966 pertaining to the larger extent of lands in S.No.145/1 executed by V.P.Sundaram, son of Perumal, giving up his right in the subject property to and in favour of his brother Govindarajan, son of Perumal, the vendor of the appellant herein. This document categorically describes the lefger extent of lands in the schedule to the Release Deed for S.No.145/1 (viz., Grama Natham lands) with clear description of boundaries together with a house thereon. Therefore, As a matter of fact, in line with the reported judgment of this Hon'ble Court in 2012 (2) CTC (315) State of Tamil Nadu Vs. Madasamy and others, the trial court ought to have recognized the unfettered title of Perumal and his children in the Grama Natham land based on their possession as well as the house that was built in the site, which finds a place in the earliest piece of document viz., the release deed Ex.B1 of the year 1966. The appellant having purchased a portion of the lands namely suit schedule A property admeasuring 2399 sq.ft. from the said P.Govindarajan, son of Perumal, cannot be denied of his title with respect to 280 sq.ft. The appellant having purchased a portion of the lands namely suit schedule A property admeasuring 2399 sq.ft. from the said P.Govindarajan, son of Perumal, cannot be denied of his title with respect to 280 sq.ft. of land in suit schedule 'B' property being part and parcel of suit schedule A property. vi. The trial court, though declared the title of the appellant for 2119 sq.ft. of vacant land in suit schedule A property, committed a grave error in not recognizing the title of the appellant with respect to the remaining 280 sq.ft. of vacant land viz., suit schedule B property being part of suit schedule A property, even when there are enough documents to show that the appellant had exercised his title and possessory rights even over the suit schedule 'B' property vide (i) Ex.A4 dated 20.06.2006 being Extract of Town Survey Land Register namely, patta, (ii) Ex.A5 dated 15.10.2004 being receipt for Planning Permit of CMDA, (iii) Ex.A6dated 16.12.2004 being Planning Permission given by the Corporation of Chennai and (iv) series of documents viz., Ex.A7 to Al2being police complaints, legal notice etc. exchanged during that time protecting his possession as well as his property rights. Vii. The learned judge ought to have decreed the suit in toto and allowed the relief of permanent and mandatory injunction together with compensation in the light of (i) the fact that the rival claim of title of the respondents were rejected; and (ii) Ex.C1 Report and Ex.C2 Plan of the Advocate Commissioner appointed by this Hon'ble Court dated 24.01.2011 which categorically and explicitly showed that the incomplete RCC structure put by the respondents are within the four boundaries of the suit schedule "A" property and wherein the learned Advocate Commissioner had also identified the opening of the northern side of the compound wall that was blocked by the Appellant with an iron board, thus protecting further intrusion. Therefore, the report of the Advocate Commissioner read in conjunction with the pleadings in the suit would amply establish that the suit schedule 'B' property was within the precincts of suit schedule 'A' property and therefore the learned judge ought to have granted the relief in full as prayed for by the Appellant in Appeal No.9123/2019. 5. Therefore, the report of the Advocate Commissioner read in conjunction with the pleadings in the suit would amply establish that the suit schedule 'B' property was within the precincts of suit schedule 'A' property and therefore the learned judge ought to have granted the relief in full as prayed for by the Appellant in Appeal No.9123/2019. 5. By submitting the grounds, the learned counsel for the appellant prayed to set aside the findings with respect to the mandatory injunction concerning the B-schedule property and the rejection of title, permanent and mandatory injunctions, and compensation related to 280 sq. ft. of the B- schedule property. The counsel also prayed to grant title and other ancillary reliefs for the entire A-schedule property in favour of the appellant. 6. In reply, the learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that the plaintiff failed to establish their right and title to the B- schedule property (280 sq. ft.) through documentary evidence. The parent deed of the plaintiff did not clearly specify the total measurement of her vendor's property and the exact measurement of the land. This was admitted by PW-1 during cross-examination. Since the documents relied upon by the plaintiff were unclear about the measurements, including the parent deed, the learned trial judge rightly restricted relief to the A-schedule property and did not grant relief for the B-schedule property. The findings were well- reasoned and require no interference. Hence, the counsel prayed to dismiss the appeal. 7. Before the trial court, both parties presented oral and documentary evidence. On the plaintiff's side, one Rajagopal was examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A1 to Ex.A19 were marked. On the defendants' side, D.W.1 to D.W.4 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B.26 were marked. The court also marked documents as Ex.C1 and Ex.C2. 8. Upon considering the submissions from both sides, the points to be decided are as follows: "A. Whether the findings rendered by the learned trial judge rejecting the title, permanent and mandatory injunction, along with compensation concerning the B-Schedule property measuring 280 sq. ft., are erroneous and liable to be set aside? B. Whether the plaintiff has established her right and title concerning the 280 sq. ft. described in the B-schedule of the suit property?" 9. It is admitted that the dispute pertains only to the 280 sq. ft. denoted as the B-schedule property in the suit. ft., are erroneous and liable to be set aside? B. Whether the plaintiff has established her right and title concerning the 280 sq. ft. described in the B-schedule of the suit property?" 9. It is admitted that the dispute pertains only to the 280 sq. ft. denoted as the B-schedule property in the suit. According to the plaintiff, the B-schedule property forms part of the A-schedule property, and the plaintiff has proved her right and title through valid documents. Although the learned trial judge granted partial relief concerning the A-schedule property, the learned trial Judge declined to grant relief for the B-schedule property, which is a portion of the A-schedule. Hence, the plaintiff has prayed to set aside these findings. 10. The defendants, on the other hand, claimed right and title over the B-schedule property, particularly an extent of 280 sq. ft. in Survey No. 145/1. The plaintiff contended that, based on Ex.A-2 (sale deed) and Ex.A-3 (exchange deed), the plaintiff acquired 2,399 sq. ft. However, when the defendants claimed 280 sq. ft. in that property, the burden was on the plaintiff to prove that the 280 sq. ft. formed part of the A-schedule property both on the ground and through documents. 11. On perusal of the records, it is revealed that an Advocate Commissioner was appointed before the trial court. Although the plaintiff did not mark the Commissioner’s report, the trial court marked it as Ex.C1. The plan sketch prepared by the Commissioner was marked as Ex.C2. 12. Upon reviewing the Commissioner’s report, it is noted that while the physical features of the property were recorded, the report does not explain whether the suit property was measured with the assistance of a surveyor. The plan in Survey No. 145/1, as per the report, does not establish that the entire extent of 2,399 sq. ft., including the B-schedule property, belongs to the plaintiff. The Commissioner’s report and plan do not confirm that the B-schedule property forms part of the A-schedule property. This was rightly observed by the learned trial judge. 13. When the plaintiff initiated steps to appoint the Advocate Commissioner, they should have ensured that the property was measured with the help of a surveyor to provide clarity. The failure to do so has resulted in insufficient evidence. This was rightly observed by the learned trial judge. 13. When the plaintiff initiated steps to appoint the Advocate Commissioner, they should have ensured that the property was measured with the help of a surveyor to provide clarity. The failure to do so has resulted in insufficient evidence. Therefore, the physical features of the property alone are not sufficient to conclude that the B-schedule property is part of the A-schedule property. The learned trial judge rightly held that the plaintiff failed to prove that the B-schedule property, located in Survey No. 145/1, forms part of the A-schedule property. 14. By way of reply, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that through Ex.A-5 and Ex.A-6, which are the Planning Permissions from CMDA, the plaintiff has attempted to prove the extent of the property. However, the same was not properly appreciated by the learned trial judge. Upon considering the said submissions, Ex.A-5 and Ex.A-6, which pertain to the Planning Permissions, were carefully perused. 15. On perusal of Ex.B-5, it is evident that the plaintiff had submitted an application for new consideration, which was subsequently sanctioned. In the application, the plot number and survey number (145/1 of Thiruvalluvar Street, Velachery) were mentioned. As per Ex.A-3, the Extract of the Town Survey Land Registry, an extent of 0.02.18.0 Square meter is recorded in the name of the plaintiff, Bala, as a vacant site. Correspondingly, Patta Ex.A-4 was issued to this effect. 16. Therefore, the plaintiff's own documents, namely Ex.A-3 and Ex.A-4, reveal that as per the Town Survey Extract, 0.02.18.0 Square meter of land is recorded in the revenue records under her name. These documents, however, do not support the plaintiff's claim of owning 2,399 square feet in Survey Number 145/1. Furthermore, upon reviewing the exchange deed relied upon by the plaintiff, it is noted that the recitals of the document mentioned with an annexed plan. However, the said plan was not placed before this Court to establish the exact extent of the property. 17. In view of this, the learned trial judge rightly concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove and establish her right and title over the disputed B- Schedule property, which measures an extent of 280 square feet. Consequently, the relief claimed by the plaintiff in this regard was rightly rejected, and no interference is warranted. Accordingly, Issues A and B are answered in favour of the defendants. Consequently, the relief claimed by the plaintiff in this regard was rightly rejected, and no interference is warranted. Accordingly, Issues A and B are answered in favour of the defendants. It is also observed that, as per the boundary description provided by the defendants, there exists a compound wall demarcating the property. 18. Accordingly, this appeal suit is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.