S.A.No. 272 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
S.A. No.272 of 2022
Anandan (Died)
1. Anjalakshmi
2. Panchali
3. Parameswari .. Appellants
Vs.
1. Kannan
2. Giri
3. Suresh Babu
4. Dilli Babu
5. Pattammal (Died) .. Respondents
(R1 to R4, the legal heirs of the deceased fifth respondent, are brought on
record vide order of the Court dated 28.01.2019 made in C.M.P. No.23676
of 2018 in S.A.Sr.No.62480 of 2018)
Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code,
1908, against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruttani
dated 08.09.2017 made in A.S. No.1 of 2016 against O.S. No.107 of 2006 on
the file of the District Munsiff Court, Tiruttani dated 17.08.2015.
For Appellants : Mr. D.Ashok Kumar
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
S.A.No. 272 of 2022
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs in the suit in O.S. No.107 of 2006 on the file of District Munsif Court, Tiruttani are the appellants in the above second appeal. The husband of first appellant is one Anandan who filed the suit in O.S. No.107 of 2006 for declaration of his title and consequential permanent injunction in respect of the suit properties which are agricultural wet and dry lands and residential buildings described as items 11 and 12 in Tiruvalangadu Village, Tiruttani Taluk, Tiruvallore District.
2. The case of the appellants in the plaint is that the suit properties are the ancestral properties of one Arumugha Reddy s/o. Murugappa Reddy. It is the case of the appellants that the suit properties originally owned by Murugappa Reddy who had three sons by name Sabapathy Reddy, Arumuga Reddy and Abimanu Reddy. It is stated that the three sons of Murugappa Reddy divided the family properties orally by metes and bounds and the suit schedule properties were alloted to the share of Arumugha Reddy. Stating that the first plaintiff alone is the legal heir of Arumugha Reddy, the suit was filed for declaration of first plaintiff's title to the suit property. It is stated that the father of first plaintiff Arumugha Reddy died on 10.12.1988. It is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/10 S.A.No. 272 of 2022 also admitted that the fifth defendant is the legally wedded wife of Arumugha Reddy.
3. The suit is contested by the fifth defendant on the ground that the suit properties are not the ancestral properties of Arumugha Reddy. It is further stated that by partition between Arumugha Reddy and his brothers, the suit properties were allotted to Arumugha Reddy as his separate property and that therefore, the suit properties are not the ancestral property of Arumugha Reddy. It is also stated by the fifth defendant that the fifth defendant alone is the legally wedded wife of Arumugha Reddy and that Arumugha Reddy did not marry the first plaintiff's mother. It is further stated that Arumugha Reddy had no male issues and that he died leaving behind his wife, fifth defendant and her daughter as legal heirs. The fifth defendant also pleaded that her husband Arumugha Reddy during his lifetime gifted the suit property to her under a Registered settlement deed dated 20.04.1989. Stating that the property was the self acquisition of Arumugha Reddy, the fifth defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit as the suit for declaration of title is not maintainable against the fifth defendant. It is also admitted that defendants 1 to 4 are the grand children of fifth defendant through her only daughter.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/10 S.A.No. 272 of 2022
4. The trial Court, after framing necessary issues, held that the first plaintiff failed to establish that the suit properties are the ancestral properties and that there are no heirs to his father except him. The case of fifth defendant is that she is the wife of Arumugha Reddy and that Arumugha Reddy had already settled the suit properties namely Items 4 to 12 in her favour by a registered settlement deed. In view of the findings as to the character of the property and that Arumugha Reddy died leaving behind his wife, the fifth defendant, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court even though the status of first plaintiff as the son of Arumugha Reddy was accepted. Hence, liberty was given to plaintiffs to file a suit for partition in respect of certain properties with specific directions. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court granting liberty to plaintiffs and the findings, the defendants filed an appeal in A.S. No.1 of 2016 before the Sub Court, Tiruttani. The lower appellate Court held that the plaintiff did not prove that Arumugha Reddy had married the mother of first plaintiff. The lower appellate Court found that the settlement deed in favour of fifth defendant is proved by the fifth defendant and that she is in possession and enjoyment of the same along with defendants 1 to 4. The lower appellate Court also held in favour of the respondent that patta and revenue records https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/10 S.A.No. 272 of 2022 stands in the name of fifth defendant in respect of Items 4,5,7 to 10 of the suit schedule properties and that the 'A' Register is in the name of fifth defendant as regards Items 1 to 11 of the suit schedule properties. After independently considering the whole evidence, the lower appellate Court allowed the appeal, finding that the suit properties are the exclusive properties of fifth defendant, the wife of Arumugha Reddy and that the plaintiffs are not entitled to any right as the plaintiffs failed to establish the status of first plaintiff as the son of late Sri. Arumugha Reddy.
5. Aggrieved by the findings of the lower appellate Court, the legal heirs of first plaintiff have preferred this appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law:
“ 1. Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in law in saying that all the suit properties are self acquired properties of Arumugha Reddy without any valid and conclusive proof ?
2. Whether lower appellate Court is right in law in decreeing the appeal on the basis of conjectures and surmises regarding title to the suit property when the defendants did not prove their title over the suit property in a manner known to law?
3. Whether the Courts below are justified in completely omitting to note that the birth and death register are statutory certificates given under the birth and death registration Act and they are deemed to be valid and conclusive https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/10 S.A.No. 272 of 2022 proof of entries made in the birth and death register and no evidence was let into prove the said certificates are false and hence the said certificates must be taken as a conclusive proof of birth of the plaintiff Anandan to Arumugha Reddy and also the date of death of Arumugha Reddy as 12.12.1988 ?”
6. The plaintiffs have come forward with a suit for declaration of title and for consequential injunction in respect of the suit properties which belonged to late Sri. Arumugha Reddy on the ground that he is the only son of late Sri. Arumugha Reddy. In the course of evidence, it turns out that Arumugha Reddy had married the fifth defendant and executed a registered settlement deed in favour of fifth defendant in respect of almost all the major properties which are described in the plaint. Though the first plaintiff claimed to be the son of Arumugha Reddy, the appellants have not let in any evidence to prove the factum of marriage between the first plaintiff's mother and Arumugha Reddy. It is proved that Arumugha Reddy died on 07.04.1990. The question whether the plaintiff alone is the only legal heir is answered against the plaintiff holding that the first wife of Arumugha Reddy is alive and that the said Arumugha Reddy had executed a registered settlement deed in favour of fifth respondent almost conveying his title to the major items of properties. To get title to the suit properties, the plaintiffs have to establish that the suit properties are the ancestral properties of Arumugha Reddy and that the first plaintiff is the only son who is entitled to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 6/10 S.A.No. 272 of 2022 inherit the property from his father and that the fifth defendant is not the wife of Arumugha Reddy apart from disproving the settlement deed. In the present case, suppressing the fact that Arumugha Reddy had married the fifth defendant as his first wife and that a registered settlement deed had been executed by Arumugha Reddy in favour of the fifth defendant, the plaintiffs came forward with the suit but failed to prove their case. Though the trial Court accepted the status of first plaintiff as the son of Sri. Arumugha Reddy, dismissed the suit but granted liberty to the plaintiffs to file a suit for partition in respect of certain properties. Aggrieved by the findings of trial Court, the defendant alone filed an appeal in A.S. No.1 of 2016 and not the plaintiffs.
7. The lower appellate Court held against the plaintiffs and found that the appellants have failed to prove their status as legal heirs of Arumugha Reddy. When the appellants have not disputed the fact that the Arumugha Reddy had married fifth defendant, the settlement deed stated to have been executed by Arumugha Reddy in favour of fifth defendant is natural and this Court finds no reasons to interfere with the well considered judgment of the lower appellate Court. Before the trial Court, the wife of first plaintiff was examined as P.W.1. In her evidence, she pleaded ignorance to many https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/10 S.A.No. 272 of 2022 questions put to her. P.W.2 did not come for cross examination. Except the computer patta obtained in 2004 and some documents after suit, there is no cogent evidence to prove the case of plaintiffs. Defendants have examined five witnesses and marked Ex.B1 to B17 to show that the revenue records stands in the name of fifth defendant.
8. This Court is of the view that the appellants have come with a suit for declaration of their title by suppressing material facts and the existence of first wife of Arumugha Reddy under whom the plaintiffs' claim title. The lower appellate Court considered the issue about the status of first plaintiff whether he is the son of Arumugha Reddy. The lower appellate Court has considered the pleadings, documents and oral evidence on both sides and decided every issue against plaintiffs and allowed the appeal. Even the evidence of P.W.1 does not help the plaintiffs to prove their status. On proper appreciation of evidence, the lower appellate Court accepted the entire case of defendants and held that the appellant / plaintiffs have failed to prove their case. This Court is unable to find any legal infirmity in the judgment of lower appellate Court. In view of the findings of Courts below, this Court is unable to find any substance in any of the question of law raised.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/10 S.A.No. 272 of 2022
9. As a result, this second appeal is dismissed.
01.04.2022 bkn Index: Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order To:
1. The Subordinate Judge, Tiruttani.
2. The District Munsif, Tiruttani.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/10 S.A.No. 272 of 2022 S.S.SUNDAR, J., bkn S.A. No.272 of 2022 01.04.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/10