Madras High Court
Kannan vs Karuppannan on 25 February, 2021
S.A (MD) No.699 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.02.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
S.A (MD) No.699 of 2020 and
CMP(MD).No. 7235 of 2020
Kannan .. Appellant / Appellant / defendant
Vs.
Ponnambalam (died)
1.Karuppannan
2.Murugesan
3.Ravichandran
4.Shanthi
(R3 and R4 impleaded herein
as per order in I.A.No.41 of 2017
dated 23.01.2019) : Respondents / Plaintiffs
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC against the order
passed by the Subordinate Court, Kulithalai, dated 03.09.2019 made in
A.S.No. 8 of 2015, confirming the Judgment and decreetal order made in
O.S.No.193 of 2008, dated 22.04.2015, on the file of the District Munsif
Court, Kulithalai.
For Appellant : Mrs. P.Kalaiyarasi Bharathi
1/7
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A (MD) No.699 of 2020
JUDGMENT
The defendant in O.S.No.193 of 2008 is the appellant.
Challenge is to that the Judgment and decree in A.S.No.8 of 2015 which in
turn affirms the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.193 of 2008 granting the
relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction in favour of the
plaintiffs.
2. The plaintiffs sought for the relief of declaration of title and
permanent injunction contending that the suit property originally belonged
to the plaintiffs' father Annavi and his brother Sangapillai. The brothers
divided the property under a partition deed on 19.06.1967. In the said
partition, the father of the plaintiffs was allotted an extent of 16 cents in
S.F.No. 298/4 and the brother was allotted 11 Cents in S.F.No.298/6. The
plaintiffs father also obtained a patta for the property allotted to him in
S.F.No.298/4 and he has been possession and enjoyment of the property till
his death about 30 years prior to the filing of the suit. On the death of the
plaintiffs' father the property devolved on the plaintiffs. Claiming that the
defendant who has not right over the property, attempted to interfere with
the plaintiffs possession, the plaintiffs came up with the above suit.
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A (MD) No.699 of 2020
3. The suit was resisted by the defendant contending that the
extent of suit properties is only 3 ½ cents and not 5 cents. It was claimed
that Sangapillai had two sons by name Veeramalai and Manikkam, the
defendant denied the partition and the issuance of patta. According to the
defendant, the suit property belonged to one Murugesan and Veeramalai @
Settu, who sold the property to one Sangili on 10.09.1998. It is further
claimed that the said Sangili appointed one Murugesan as his power agent
on 09.11.2005 and the said Murugesan sold the land to the defendant on
09.11.2005. Antecedent documents and possession of the property were
also handed over to the defendant.
4. At trial, the plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and one
Vellaichamy was examined as PW.2 and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. The
defendant was examined as DW.1 and three other witnesses were
examined as DW.2 to DW.4 and Exs. B1 to B4 were marked.
5. Upon considering the evidence, the Courts below
concluded that as per Ex.A2 partition deed, “A” schedule property allotted
to Annavi and the “B” schedule property allotted to Sangapillai. The
defendant who has purchased from Sangapillai in turn purchased from
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A (MD) No.699 of 2020
Veeralmalai @ Settu, cannot claim the title in S.F.No. 298 / 4 which was
allotted to Annavi under the partition deed and on the said finding the
learned trial Judge decreed the suit as prayed for. The defendant preferred
an appeal in A.S.No. 8 of 2015 and the appellate Court re-appreciated the
evidence on record, concurred with the findings of the trial Court and
dismissed the appeal. Hence, the second appeal.
6. Mrs. P. Kalaiarasi Bharathi, learned counsel appearing for
the appellant would vehemently contend that the appellant having
purchased the property from Sangapillai through his power agent
Murugesan has proved his title and hence, the Courts below is wrong in
decreeing the suit.
7. Both the courts below have clearly pointed out that the
property in S.No.298/4 was allotted to Annavi and the other brother
Sangapillai had no right over the same. It was also found that the said
Sangapillai was allotted land in S.No.298 / 6 in the partition of the year
1967 as evidenced by Ex.A2. Once it is shown that the property was
allotted to the predecessor in the interest of the plaintiffs at the partition of
the year 1967 and the revenue records also have been produced. The
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A (MD) No.699 of 2020
defendant who had purchased the properties for one of the parties to the
partition in the year 1967, cannot be heard to contend that he had
purchased the property which was not allotted to his vendor's predecessor.
Despite his best efforts, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is
unable to demonstrate that the factual findings of the Courts below are
perverse. He is unable to point out any question of law, much less a
substantial question of law arising for consideration in this appeal.
8. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed without being
admitted. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition
is closed.
25.02.2021
Index : yes/no
Internet : yes/no
trp
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A (MD) No.699 of 2020
To
1. The Subordinate Court, Kulithalai,
2. The District Munsif Court, Kulithalai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A (MD) No.699 of 2020
R.SUBRAMANIAN,J.,
trp
S.A (MD) No.699 of 2020 and
CMP(MD).No. 7235 of 2020
25.02.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
