Madras High Court
S.Pushbalatha vs M.A.Iqbal on 23 February, 2021
S.A.(MD)No.94 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.02.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
S.A.(MD)No.94 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.1512 of 2021
S.Pushbalatha : Appellant
Vs.
1.M.A.Iqbal
2.The Commissioner,
Mandapam Panchayat Union Office,
Uchipuli, Ramanathapuram District.
3.The Planning Director,
Kalaignanar House Building Scheme,
Office of the District Collector,
Ramanathapuram.
4.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
through District representative,
The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram. : Respondents
PRAYER:- Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure,
to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Principal District Court,
Ramanathapuram, dated 08.12.2017 in A.S.No.12 of 2015 confirming the
judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1 of 2011 by the Subordinate Court,
Ramanathapuram, dated 11.03.2015 insofar as decreed the suit declaring that
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/7
S.A.(MD)No.94 of 2021
the schedule property belonged to the first respondent and granted a permanent
injunction in favour of him is confirmed in favour of the first respondent is
concerned alone.
For Appellant :Mr.P.Senthurpandian
****
JUDGMENT
The fourth defendant in O.S.No.1 of 2011 is the appellant herein.
2.The said suit was filed by the first respondent herein seeking
declaration of his title and consequential injunction to an extent of 4.44 cents of
land in S.Nos.37/2A2 and 37/2E2 of Enmanamkondan Village,
Ramanathapuram District. According to the plaintiff, the suit property
originally belonged to one A.S.Kader Mohideen. The fourth defendant and one
C.Nagarajan, purchased the property for a valuable consideration from the said
A.S.Kader Mohideen under a sale deed, dated 03.10.2006. As per the sale deed,
both C.Nagarajan and the fourth defendant are entitled to an equal share in the
property. The said Nagarajan sold his share in the property to the plaintiff on
12.12.2009. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, he is entitled to an extent of
4.44 cents out of 8.88 cents purchased by C.Nagarajan and the fourth defendant
under the sale deed, dated 03.10.2006. Claiming that the fourth defendant, by
suppressing the facts, has obtained a patta for the entire 8.88 cents in her name
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.(MD)No.94 of 2021
and has also got an allotment of funds for construction of house under the
scheme promoted by the Government, the plaintiff came up with the suit for the
reliefs stated above.
2.Unfortunately, the first defendant, who has no interest in the merits of
the claim between defendants 1 and 4, filed a written statement contending that
the fourth defendant is the owner of the property. The fourth defendant,
however, filed a separate written statement contending that though the sale
deed, dated 03.10.2006, stands in the name of C.Nagarjan and herself,
Nagarajan did not contribute any money towards purchase of the property.
Therefore, he has given a consent letter for effecting mutation of revenue
records in the name of the fourth defendant and hence, she is the absolute owner
of the property.
3.At trial, the plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and one Meena was
examined as PW-2. Ex-A1 to Ex-A8 were marked. One Rathnavelu was
examined as DW-1, the fourth defendant was examined as DW-2 and one Seeni
was examined as DW-3. Ex-B1 to Ex-B11 were marked.
4.Upon a consideration of the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.(MD)No.94 of 2021
concluded that since the purchase by C.Nagarajan and fourth defendant is
admitted by the fourth defendant, the fourth defendant cannot contend that the
entire consideration for the purchase of the property under the sale deed, dated
03.10.2006 was paid by her and C.Nagarajan did not contribute any money
towards the consideration. Upon such finding, the learned trial Judge decreed
the suit. The learned Trial Judge also took note of the fact that mere mutation of
revenue records in the name of the fourth defendant would not confer title on
her. Aggrieved, the fourth defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.12 of 2015.
The learned Appellate Judge, on a re-consideration of the evidence on record,
affirmed the conclusions of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Hence, the
second appeal.
5.I have heard Mr.P.Senthurpandian, learned Counsel appearing for the
appellant.
6.Mr.P.Senthurpandian, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant
would vehemently contend that the Courts below were not right in ignoring the
fact that patta was transferred in the name of the fourth respondent for the
entirety of the property based on a consent letter given by the vendor of the
plaintiff. Therefore, according to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.(MD)No.94 of 2021
Courts below were not right in upholding the title of the plaintiff, when the
plaintiff's vendor has conceded the title of the fourth defendant.
7.I am unable to countenance the submissions of the learned Counsel for
the appellant. The very plea/defence of the fourth defendant to the effect that
she contributed the entire sale consideration and purchased the property in the
name of herself and C.Nagarajan is barred under the provisions of Prohibition
of Benami Property Transactions Act 1988. When a plea is opposed to a statute,
the Courts cannot entertain such a plea and pronounce upon it. The contention
of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that possession of the fourth
defendant has been acknowledged by the Government by issuing patta in her
name. The acknowledgement of possession by the Government or even the
acknowledgement of title by the Government is not germane to the decision in
the suit. The plaintiff has come to the Court with the specific case of title on the
ground that he has purchased the property from C.Nagarjan. The antecedent
sale deed, namely, sale deed, dated 30.10.2006 stands in the name of the fourth
defendant and C.Nagarajan. Therefore, grant of patta, whether based on consent
or otherwise, by the revenue authorities will not confer right or title on the
fourth defendant to the entirety of the property.
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.(MD)No.94 of 2021
8.Despite his best efforts, the learned Counsel for the appellant is unable
to make out a question of law, much less a substantial question of law to enable
me to entertain the appeal. The appeal, therefore, fails and it is accordingly
dismissed without being admitted. No costs. Consequently, connected
miscellaneous petition is closed.
Index: Yes/No 23.02.2021
(1/2)
To
1.The Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram.
2.The Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram,
3.The Commissioner,
Mandapam Panchayat Union Office,
Uchipuli, Ramanathapuram District.
4.The Planning Director,
Kalaignanar House Building Scheme,
Office of the District Collector,
Ramanathapuram.
5.The Government of Tamil Nadu,
through District representative,
The District Collector,
Ramanathapuram.
6.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.(MD)No.94 of 2021
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
cmr
Judgment made in
S.A.(MD)No.94 of 2021
23.02.2021
(1/2)
http://www.judis.nic.in
