Madras High Court
Ranganathan vs Rajeswari on 2 December, 2021
S.A.No.734 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 02.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
S.A.No.734 of 2021
Ranganathan, Aged 62 years,
S/o.Sevi,
M.Kunathur Village, Ulundurpet Taluk,
Villupuram District. ... Appellant
.Vs.
Rajeswari, Aged 58 years,
W/o.Muthukrishnan,
No.1/313, Dhagur Street,
EB Colony, Madurai Ayyar Bangala,
Madurai District. ... Respondent
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC to set aside
the judgment of learned Sub Judge Ulundurpet in A.S.No.75/2018 dated
28.03.2019 confirming the Decree of Principal District Munsif Court at
Ulundurpet in O.S.No.3/2014 dated 04.01.2018.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Ramajayam
For Respondent : Mr.M.Himavanth
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.734 of 2021
Sub Judge, Ulundurpet in A.S.No.75 of 2018, dated 28.03.2019
confirming the judgment of the learned Principal District Munsif,
Ulundurpet in O.S.No.3 of 2014 dated 04.01.2018.
2.The Respondent as a Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title of
the suit property and permanent injunction restraining the
Appellant/Defendant from interfering with her possession and enjoyment
of the suit property. The case of the Respondent is that the suit property
was originally belonged to one Chitra, W/o.Balu Naidu, through a sale
deed dated 23.12.1986 and one Balaji had purchased the suit property
from Chitra, through a registered sale deed dated 30.05.2006. Thereafter,
Respondent purchased the suit property from Balaji, through a registered
sale deed dated 25.04.2012. Ever since the date of purchase, Respondent
is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. She was granted patta
in respect of the suit property and she has been paying Kist. Appellant
has no right in the suit property. Without any right, Appellant was trying
to interfere with the possession of the suit property by the Respondent.
Therefore, the suit was filed for the aforesaid reliefs prayed for.
3.The Appellant/Defendant filed written statement denying the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.734 of 2021
aforesaid averments made in the Plaint. It is the specific case of the
Appellant that the suit property and other properties were partitioned
among the Sourirajalu Naidu and his sons on 30.03.1960. In that partition,
the suit property and other properties were allotted to minor Subramanian
as 'C' schedule. Since Subramanian was a minor, his Mother viz.,
Soundram Ammal was acting as a guardian for Subramanian. After
Subramanian attained majority, he independently possessed and enjoyed
the suit property. Then Subramanian and Balu exchanged the properties
allotted to them in the partition. This exchange was oral. As per this
exchange, the suit property was allotted to Balu and Balu was enjoying the
suit property and his other properties with his wife Malarvizhi. Balu and
Malarvizhi had sold the suit property to the Appellant on 14.06.2012
through a registered sale deed. From the date of the purchase of the suit
property, appellant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
Therefore, suit is liable to be dismissed.
4.The trial Court framed the following issues on the basis of the
aforesaid pleadings:
“(i)Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of
declaration of permanent injunction as prayed for?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.734 of 2021
(ii)Whether the Plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment
of the suit property?
(iii)Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the suit property as
per the sale deed dated 14.06.2012 and whether he is in
possession and enjoyment of the suit property?
(iv)Whether sale deed dated 14.06.2012 would be binding
on the Plaintiff?
(v)To what other relief , the Plaintiff is entitled? ”
5.During the trial, PWs.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.A1 to A13
were marked on the side of the Plaintiff and Dws.1 & 2 were examined
and Ex.B1 was marked on the side of the Defendant. Exs.X1 to X7 were
marked through witnesses.
6.On considering the oral and documentary evidences produced by
either side, the learned trial Judge, found that the appellant has failed to
prove the allotment of properties, as per the Partition deed dated
30.03.1960, by producing the partition deed and has also failed to establish
the exchange between Subramanian and Balu and in pursuance of the oral
exchange, the suit property was allotted to Balu. When the partition deed
dated 30.03.1960 and subsequent oral exchange between Subramanian and
Balu were not proved, the purchase of suit property by the Appellant from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.734 of 2021
Balu and his wife have no legal effect. On the other hand, Respondent
proved his title and possession in respect of the suit property and in this
view of the matter, dismissed the suit.
7.The Appellant filed an Appeal in A.S.No.75 of 2018 against the
judgment of the trial Court. The learned Appellate Judge also found from
the evidence, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, judgment
of the trial Court and found that the finding recorded by the trial Court
needs no interference. In this view of the matter, the learned first
Appellate Judge dismissed the Appeal. Therefore, the appellant, who lost
before both the Courts below, has filed this Second Appeal.
8.Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the oral
exchange between Subramanian and Balu was completely admitted by
PW1 during the course of his cross examination. Admitted facts need not
be proved. When it is admitted that there was an oral exchange between
Subramanian and Balu, the property purchased by the Appellant from Balu
and Malarvizhi on 14.06.2012 is a valid purchase and Appellant acquired
valid title and possession through this sale deed. This submission of PW1
was not considered by the trial Court and the Appellate Court. Therefore,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.734 of 2021
learned counsel for the Appellant prayed for setting aside the judgment of
the Court below and dismissal of the suit.
9.Learned counsel for the Caveator/Respondent submitted that
Appellant has not established his case by producing relevant oral and
documentary evidences. Appellant has produced only Ex.B1 and
examined two witnesses. The alleged partition among Sourirajalu Naidu
and his sons on 30.03.1960 and subsequent exchange between
Subramanian and Balu had not been properly proved. Merely because
there is an innocuous admission by PW1 that there was an oral exchange,
in the absence of any tangible and acceptable material, it cannot be
concluded that there was an oral exchange. He further submitted that both
the Courts below rightly found that Respondent established his right and
title and decreed the Suit. He prayed for confirming the judgment of the
Court below and dismissal of this Appeal.
10.Considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the
Appellant and the Respondent and perused the records. The narration of
the facts of the case shows that both the Appellant and the Respondent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.734 of 2021
traced title through two different line of same family. Respondent claimed
to have purchased the suit property on 25.04.2012. The said sale deed is
marked as Ex.A3. Previous title deed in favour of Balaji was produced as
Ex.A1. She also produced Encumbrance Certificates as Exs.A4 to A6,
Ex.A7-Chitta and Exs.A8 & A9-kist receipts to show her title and
possession in respect of the suit property.
11.The case of the appellant is that there was a partition in the
family of Sourirajan Naidu on 30.03.1960. In the said partition minor
Subramanian was allotted to 'C' schedule property and his brother Balu
was allotted to 'B' schedule property. Then Subramanian and Balu
exchanged the properties allotted to them in the partition and suit property
was alloted to Balu in the exchange. The exchange was said to be an oral
exchange. Oral exchange is not recognised under law, if the value of the
property exceeds Rs.100/-. As rightly found by the Courts below that the
Appellant has not produced any material like partition deed dated
30.03.1960 and materials evidencing the alleged oral exchange between
Subramanian and Balu. It is not even specifically pleaded in the written
statement as to the alleged date of oral exchange. Therefore, this Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.734 of 2021
has to necessarily conclude that alleged oral exchange between
Subramanian and Balu had not been proved by the Appellant. Merely
because there is an admission made by PW1, that there was an oral
exchange between Subramanian and Balu, in the absence of any material
in support of the alleged oral exchange and that oral exchange was acted
upon, we cannot come to a definite conclusion that there was an oral
exchange between Subramanian and Balu and in that exchange, suit
property was allotted to Balu.
12.One more interesting aspect in this case is that though the suit
property was claimed to have been purchased by the Appellant on
14.06.2012 through Ex.B.1 sale deed. The same property was again
purchased Appellant's wife through Ex.A2 from one Kalavathi and
Revathi. It is not known why such a purchase was made. But the fact
remains that this purchase greatly dented the case of the Appellant.
Perusal of oral and documentary evidence, produced in this case show that
Appellant has miserably failed to establish the partition dated 30.03.1960
and then the alleged oral exchange between Subramanian and Balu. When
that be the case, the purchase of suit property through Ex.B1 from Balu on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.734 of 2021
14.06.2012 cannot have any legal effect and will not confer any title to the
Appellant. Thus, this Court finds no reason to differ from the findings of
the Courts below that Appellant failed to establish his case, on the other
hand, Respondent established her title and possession in respect of the suit
property. Trial Court decreed the suit and that was confirmed by the
Appellate Court.
13.Therefore, this Court finds no reason interfere with the judgment
of the learned Sub Judge, Ulundurpet in A.S.No.75 of 2018, dated
28.03.2019, confirming the judgment of the learned Principal District
Munsif, Ulundurpet in O.S.No.3 of 2014 dated 04.01.2018. There is no
substantial question(s) of law involved in this Second Appeal. In this view
of the matter, the Second Appeal is dismissed. However, there is no order
as to costs.
02.12.2021
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order
Index : Yes
Internet : Yes
sai
To
The learned Sub Judge,
Sub Court,
Ulundurpet.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.734 of 2021
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN, J.
sai
S.A.No.734 of 2021
Dated: 02.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
