Madras High Court
R.K. Rajalingam vs M.L. Meenakshi on 21 January, 2021
S.A (MD) No.28 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.01.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
S.A (MD) No.28 of 2021 and
CMP(MD).Nos.387 and 421 of 2021
Kasi Viswanatha Mudaliar (died)
1.R.K. Rajalingam
2.R.K.Rathinasamy
3.R.K. Chandrasekaran
4.R.K. Bagyalakshmi .. Appellants / LRs of the Sole defendant
Vs.
S.K.Krishnasamy (died)
1. M.L. Meenakshi
2.T.V.M. Janakiammal
3.S.K.Varadarajan
4.P.Aalaiammal
5.S.K.Radhakrishnan
6.M.S.M. Rajakumari ... Respondents / Respondents
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC against the Judgment
and Decree dated 27.08.2018 passed in A.S.No.10 of 1992, on the file of
the Principal Sub Court, Dindigul confirming the Judgment and Decree,
dated 24.04.1990 passed in O.S.No.439 of 1986, on the file of the District
Munsif Court, Periyakulam.
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/8
S.A (MD) No.28 of 2021
For Appellants : Mr.M.R. Sreenivasan
JUDGMENT
The legal representatives of the defendant in O.S.No.439 of
1986, who suffered a decree for declaration of title and injunction at the
hands of the learned District Musnif, Periyakulam, upon its affirmation
by the appellate Court in A.S.No.10 of 1992, have come up with this
Second Appeal.
2. The plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration of title and
injunction claiming that the suit property originally belonged to one
Krishnasamy Muthaliyar. The plaintiff had purchased the suit property
from the said Krishnasamy Muthaliyar and his son viz., Hari Krishnan
under the sale deed on 29.08.1985. He would also contend that the said
Krishnasamy Muthaliyar had mortgaged the property by way of simple
mortgage deed to the plaintiff on 19.06.1979 and the said mortgage was
discharged on 15.02.1985. The claim of the plaintiff is that the defendant
had issued a notice questioning the title of the plaintiff and asserting title
over the plaint schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff has come up with
the suit for permanent injunction. Upon written statement being filed by
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A (MD) No.28 of 2021
the defendant, questioning the title of the plaintiff, the plaintiff had
amended the plaint seeking the relief of declaration also.
3. The suit was resisted by the defendant contending that the
suit properties were ancestral properties of the family of one
Kulandaimandan Muthaliyar who had left behind the vendor of the
plaintiff, viz., Kulandaimandan Muthaliyar and Rajalinga Muthaliyar.
The defendant is the son of the Rajalinga Muthaliyar. It is claimed that
the property was allotted to the Rajalinga Muthaliyar and it is also claimed
that when the said Kulandaimandan Muthaliyar died issueless, Rajalinga
Muthaliyar inherited his share also. According to the defendant, the suit
property belonged to his father viz., K.S.R. Kasiviswanatha Muthaliyar
and on his death on 03.07.1990, it is devolved on him and his sons.
4. At trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and
examined his vendor as PW.2 and one S.V. Rengasamy was examined as
PW.3. Exs. A1 to A47 were marked. The defendant himself was examined
as DW.1 and one Manoharan was examined as DW.2 and Exs.B1 to
Ex.B56 were marked.
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A (MD) No.28 of 2021
5. The trial Court, upon consideration of the evidence on
record, concluded that the claim of the defendant that Kulandaimandan
Muthaliyar died without issues, itself is false. The trial Court also found
that the proceedings of the Board of Revenue as well as the Commissioner
of Land Revenue which were produced as Exs.A42 and A44 would show
that the joint Patta that was issued in the name of Kualandaimandan
Muthaliyar and Rajalingam Muthaliyar was directed to be cancelled and
original portion was directed to be restored. Thereafter, the patta was
issued in favour of the vendor of the plaintiff viz., Krishnasamy
Muthaliyar, who was examined as PW.2. The trial Court also found that
since Krishnasamy Muthaliyar, the vendor of the plaintiff was a minor at
the time of death of his father, the name of Rajalinga Muthaliyar, his
paternal uncle was included in the Revenue records and such inclusion is
sought to be taken advantage by the defendant. The trial Court also found
fault with the inclusion, that was ultimately deleted by the order of the
Commissioner of Land Revenue under Ex.A42.
6. This being the case, the trial Court concluded that the case
of the defendant that the property belonged to the family of
Kulanthaimandan Muthaliyar and it was inherited by the father of the
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A (MD) No.28 of 2021
defendant viz., Rajalinga Muthaliyar could not be accepted. On the other
above findings, the trial Court had decreed the suit in favour of the
plaintiff. Since the sole defendant died pending suit, his legal
representatives were brought on record as defendants 2 to 5. The Legal
representatives of the deceased defendant filed an appeal in A.S.No.10 of
1992.
7. The appellate Court, upon re-appreciation of the evidence
on record agreed with the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the
appeal. Hence, this second appeal.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would
vehemently contend that PW.2, in his evidence, deposed that he does not
know beyond his father's title of the property. Therefore, the Courts
below were not right in believing the claim of the plaintiff that the
property belonged to PW.2, he having inherited the same from his father.
As a consequence, the Courts below were not right in confirming the sale
by PW.2 in favour of the plaintiff.
9. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A (MD) No.28 of 2021
appellant over looks plethora of documentary evidence which would show
that originally the properties stood registered in the name of
Kulandaimandan Muthaliyar and after his death in the year 1929, the
Revenue records were mutated in the name of the vendor of the plaintiff
viz., Krishnamsamy Muthaliyar and the maternal uncle - Rajalinga
Muthaliyar was included as joint pattadhar. Such inclusion was directed to
be deleted by the order of the Board of Revenue in the year 1979. These
orders have not been challenged by the defendants or his predecessors.
Therefore, the title claimed by the plaintiff, through his vendor
Krishnsamay Muthaliyar, who, inturn, claimed through Kulanthaimandan
Muthaliyar has been established by documentary evidence. Hence, the
admission in oral evidence could not be a ground to reject the claim of the
plaintiff. The Courts below considering the facts and circumstances and
evidence on record, have come to the conclusion that sale in favour of the
plaintiff by his vendor viz., PW.2 is valid. Despite his best efforts, the
learned counsel appearing for the appellants 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 in this
Second Appeal.
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A (MD) No.28 of 2021
10. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed without
being admitted. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
21.01.2021
Index : yes/no
Internet : yes/no
trp
To
1. The Principal Sub Court, Dindigul.
2. The District Munsif Court, Periyakulam.
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A (MD) No.28 of 2021
R.SUBRAMANIAN,J.,
trp
S.A (MD) No.28 of 2021 and
CMP(MD).Nos.387 and 421 of 2021
21.01.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
