Madras High Court
Deivanai vs Durai on 22 January, 2021
S.A. No. 840 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.01.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
S.A.No.840 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.22973 of 2018
1.Deivanai
2.Paramasivan
3.Vijayalakshmi
4.Vinayagamurthi
5.Balakrishnan ... Appellants
-vs-
1.Durai
2.Balu ...Respondents
PRAYER: The Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC., to set
aside the judgment and decree dated 18.03.2014 made in A.S.No.51 of 2013
on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Tiruvannamalai confirming the
judgment and decree dated 12.04.2013 made in O.S.No.569 of 2006 on the
file of the Principal District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai.
For Appellants : Mr.G.Nagarajan
For Respondents : Mr.K.Venkatasubbam
for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates
JUDGMENT
The second appeal has filed challenging the judgment and decree
dated 18.03.2014 made in A.S.No.51 of 2013 on the file of the Principal Sub
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A. No. 840 of 2018
Judge, Tiruvannamalai confirming the judgment and decree dated 12.04.2013
made in O.S.No.569 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif,
Tiruvannamalai.
2.The appellants have filed this second appeal raising the following
substantial questions of law:
“i) Whether the Lower Court having found that the
Exh.B.12 is sale deed in favour of the 1st Defendant is not proved
and fictitious since already the entire extent of lands in Survey
No.145/2 were purchased by the predecessors of the Defendants,
erred in dismissing the suit?
ii) Whether the Courts below are right in stating that
the Plaintiffs have not identified the “B” schedule property
properly, while admittedly the Defendants did not claim any
right against the “B” schedule property?”
3.The learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submitted that the
appellants are the owner of “A” schedule property to the extent of 0.37 1/3
acres of land. It is the case of the appellants that the respondents/defendants
have worngfully encroached 12 cents described in the “B” schedule property.
Further, he submitted that according to the respondents they have purchased
23 cents of land by virtue of sale deed, Ex.B12 dated 06.07.2005. Those 23
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A. No. 840 of 2018
cents have been sold without any document and ownership by the vendors.
Under the guise of the sale deed dated 06.07.2005, the respondents have
encroached appellant's land. Though on the side of the appellants, P.W.1
was examined and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked to prove the case, both the
Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court have not considered the case of the
appellants in a proper prespective. Therefore, he contended that the
judgment and decree passed by the Courts below is perverse and visiated for
failure to consider the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective.
In support of his contention, he referred paragraph 21 of the judgment passed
by the Appellate Court, which is extracted hereunder:
“20/ Mdhy; gp/th/rh/1 jd;Dila rhl;rpaj;jpy;. nkw;go
jhth brhj;J cs;s giHa ru;nt vz;145/2?y; 2/73 Vf;fh; epyk;
bt';flRg;gh ma;aUf;F ghj;jpag;gl;L. MtUf;F gpd; mtUila
gps;isfs; ghyFUehjh;. j';fgpuk;kk; Mfpnahh;fSf;Fs;
th/rh/M1?d; K:yk; ghfk; gphpj;J. ghyFUehjUf;F xJf;fg;gl;l
ghfj;ij nfhtpe;j cilahUf;Fk;. j';fgpuk;kj;jpw;F xJf;fg;gl;l
ghfj;ij tpUj;jhk;ghSf;Fk; fpiuak; bfhLj;J.
nfhtpe;jcilahuhy; fpiuak; bgwg;gl;l ,lkhd 1/37 Vf;fUf;F
rh;nt vz;/145-2V vd;Wk;. tpUj;jhk;ghs; fpiuak; bgw;w 1/36
Vf;fUf;F rh;nt vz;/145-2gp vd;Wk; gphpf;fg;gl;lJ Fwpj;J
cz;ik vd;Wk;. j';fs; jhahuhy; fpiuak; bgwg;gl;l brhj;jpw;F
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A. No. 840 of 2018
cz;lhd mry; fpiuag; gj;jpuk; gp/th/rh/M/1 vd;Wk;. Mdhy;
j';fgpuk;kj;jhy; gpujpthjpfspd; jhahu; tpUj;jhk;ghSf;F
gp/th/rh/M/1?d;go 1/36 Vf;fh; fpiuak; bfhLj;Js;s rkaj;jpnyna
nkw;go j';fgpuk;kj;jhy; jd; mDgtj;jpy; ,Ue;j nkw;Fg[wk;
cs;s fy;yh';Fj;J ,lkhd 0/17 brd;l; ,lj;ij nrh;j;J
bkhj;jk; 1/53 Vf;fh; jd; jhahuplk; RthjPdk; bfhLj;jjhf
Twpa[s;snghjpYk;. Mt;thW 0/17 brd;l; nkw;go j';fgpuk;kj;jhy;
gp/th/rh/M/1?d; K:yk; tpUj;jhk;ghSf;F fpiuak; bfhLf;Fk;
rkaj;jpy;. 0/17 brd;l; fy;yh';Fj;J ,lj;ij mDgtpj;J te;jJ
Fwpj;njh. mnjnghd;W nkw;go j';fgpuk;kj;jpd; xnu kfdhd
tp/o/Kuspjud; vd;gthplkpUe;J nkw;go fy;yh';Fj;J ,lj;jpw;F
gj;jpu Mtzk; VJk; ,y;yhj R{H;epiyapy;. Mnj rh;nt
vz;zpy; cs;s 0/23 brd;il 06/07/2005 njjpapy;
gp/th/rh/M/12?d; K:yk; 1tJ gpujpthjp fpiuak; bgw;wJ Fwpj;J
gpujpthjpfs; jug;gpy; jFe;j Mtz';fs; K:yk;
epUgpf;fg;gltpy;iy/ Vbddpy;/ nkw;go gp/th/rh/M/1?Yk;. 1/36
brd;l;Lf;F nky; j';fgpuk;kk; 0/17 brd;l; fy;yh';Fj;J
,lj;ijnrh;j;J mDgtpj;J te;jij tpUj;jhk;ghSf;F RthjPdk;
bfhLj;jJ Fwpj;J gp/th/rh/M/1?y; fhzg;gltpy;iy/
21/ nkw;go tpUj;jhghSf;F fpiuak; bfhLj;j
j';fgpuk;kjpjpw;F th/rh/M/1Md ghfg;gphptpid K:yk; 1/36 Vf;fh;
kl;Lnk ghfk; bfhLj;Js;s epiyapy;. rh;nt vz;/145-2?y;
ghyFUehjUf;F ghfg;gphptpidapy; bfhLj;j 1/37 Vf;fh; nghf
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A. No. 840 of 2018
kPjp ve;j brhj;Jk; ,y;yhj epiyapy;. vjd; mog;gilapy; 2005?y;
0/23 brd;l; fy;yh';Fj;J ,lk; vd;W brhy;yp 1tJ gpujpthjp
nkw;go j';fgpuk;kj;jpd; kfdhd KuspjudplkpUe;J fpiuak;
bgw;whh; vd;gijg; bghWj;J gpujpthjpfs; jug;gpy; bjspthf
epUgpf;fg;gltpy;iy/ vdnt nkw;go 1/53 Vf;fuhdJ rh;nt
vz;/145-2gp?y; mjw;F cz;lhd g[jpa rh;nt vz;/283?f;F
bfhLf;fg;gl;L. 1/53 Vf;fuhf tUtha;Jiw Mtz';fspy; gl;lh
bfhLf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ gw;wp gpujpthjpfs; jug;gpy; nkw;go
gpujpthjpfspd; jhahuhy; 1/36 Vf;fh; kl;Lnk
j';fgpuk;kj;jplkpUe;J fpiuak; bgw;Ws;s epiyapy;. vt;thW 1/53
Vf;fh;. mjhtJ fy;yh';Fj;J ,lk; ve;j gFjpapy; cs;sJ
vd;gJ Fwpj;Jk;. mijr; nrh;j;Jjhd; j';fs; jhahh;
tpUj;jhk;ghs;. nkw;go j';fgpuk;kj;jplkpUe;J fpiuak; bgw;whh;
vd;gJ Fwpj;J tHf;fpy; gpujpthjpfs; jug;gpy; jFe;j
Mtz';fis jhf;fy; bra;J epUg: pf;fg;gltpy;iy vd;Wk;.
gpujpthjpfs; jug;gpy; nkw;go tUtha;Jiw Mtz';fspy;
mJnghd;wbjhU gl;lh 1/36 Vf;fUf;F gjpyhf 1/53 Vf;fiug;
bghWj;J gpujpthjpfs; bgaUf;F gl;lhthd gp/th/rh/M/8ia
bfhLj;jjd; mog;gilapy; kl;oy; itj;J. nkw;go
gpujpthjpfSf;F 1/53 Vf;fh; ghj;jpak; vd;gijg; bghWj;J
,e;ePjpkd;wk; Vw;Fk;goahf mikatpy;iy vd;gjhYk;/ nkYk;/
nkw;go thjpfs; jug;gpy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;s
2000(1) Law Weekly 488
Madras High Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A. No. 840 of 2018
Present:K.Sampath,J.
S.A.No.104/1987
Guruvammal & another ...Appellants
Vs.
Subbiah Naicker & 5 others ...Respondents
S.A.No.3 of 1989
Subbiah Naicker ...Appellant
Vs.
Guruvammal & 3 others ...Respondents
Evidence: Mutation of names in Revenue records is not
evidence of title – See Hindu Law, Partition.
vd;Wk;
1999 MLJ 507
In the High Court of Judicature of Madras
Present:S.S.Subramani, J.
Thevar Sangam through its Secretary ...Appellant
Vs.
Kanagarajan ...Respondent
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), 0.39, Rule 1 – Suit for
declaration and injunction by plaintiff claiming title on basis
of oral partition, patta and possesion – Held, antecedent title
shows entire entire property belongs to defendant except
portions given to local fund office – Plaintiff's claim based
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A. No. 840 of 2018
only on devolution of right – Mutation of property in revenue
records does not create or extinguish title nor has it any
presumptive value on title – Plaintiff bound to prove ancestral
title and how property devolved on him – Injunction cannot be
granted to person claiming possessory title as against the true
owner or against person having better title.
vd;w Kd; jPhg; ;g[f;fs; ,e;j tHf;fpw;F Kw;wpYk; bghUe;Jtjhf
mike;Js;sJ.
4.By referring above, the learned cousnel for the appellants
submitted that the respondents are entitled to the extent of 136 cents in
Survey No.145/2 and beyond that they are not entitled to any amount of land
as alleged by the respondents. That apart, the sale deed dated 06.07.2005 is
forged and concocted one. Hence, the judgment of both the Courts below is
liable to be set aside.
5.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants
submitted that they have purchased 23 cents of land from V.T.Muralidaran,
S/o.Tharagabramam on 06.07.2005 and one Viruthambal, mother of the
defendants has already pruchased the property to the extent of 136 cents vide
Ex.B1 and and B2, sale deed and patta dated 02.05.1975. The land purchased
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A. No. 840 of 2018
to the extent of 23 cents is entirely different land which was initially owned
by Tharagabramam and subsequently sold by V.T.Muralidharan. All these
facts are elaborately discussed by the Trial Court as well as the First
Appellate Court.
6.He further submitted that the appellants have not produced any
documentary evidence to prove the encroachment of the respondents. Even in
the oral evidence, P.W.1 admitted the fact that she is in possession of 0.37
1/3 cents of land in “A” schedule property. Therefore, obviously the
appellants are entitled only 0.37 1/3 cents alone and nothing more. In the
present case, it is not the respondents trying to encroach the property of the
appellants and it is only the appellants making an attempt to encroach the
property of the respondents, which is clear from her own deposition. Further,
no cause of action that have arisen and all these aspects were well considered
by both the Courts below. Therefore, no subtantial questions of law arises
and the second appeal is liable to be dismissed.
7.Heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the
respondents and perused the materials available on records.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A. No. 840 of 2018
8.The suit has been filed by the appellants herein for declaration and
recovery of possession. During trial, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A12
were marked on the side of the appellants. Based on those documents and
deposition, both the Courts below came to the conclusion that the appellants
have not proved their case by producing proper documentary evidence as
well as by the oral evidence. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to refer
paragraph Nos. 6 to 10 of the order passed by the Trial Court:
“6.The first issue to be decided is whether the
plaintiffs have proved their right and title over the B-schedule
of property and whether they are in possession and enjoyment
of the B-schedule of property. On perusal of the documents
filed by the plaintiffs, they are seen to be partition deed, sale
deed in favour of Govinda Udaiyar, sale deed in favour of
Viruthambal, sale deed in favour of Venkatesan. The other
documents are seen to be the presuit notice, reply notice and
CSR issued by the Vengikkal Taluk Police. The plaintiffs
have not filed any other revenue records like Patta, Chitta, A-
Register in order to prove their right over the B-Schedule of
property. With this regard, when PW1 was questioned
whether she has filed any revenue records or adangal extract
to prove her possession and enjoyment over the suit property,
she has stated,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A. No. 840 of 2018
“tHf;F gp?ml;ltiz brhj;J ehd; mDgtpj;J
tUfpnwd; vd;gij fhz;gpf;f ml';fy; Mtzj;ij
ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jhf;fy; bra;aptpy;iy”
This explicit admission of PW1, itself is evident to
prove that, she has not filed sufficient revenue records to
prove her possession and enjoyment. Further, the plaintiffs
assert that B-schedule of property belongs to them and on
perusal of the written statement, this Court observes that the
B-schedule of property is a portion of the A-schedule of
property and this court has to look into whether the plaintiffs
have proved that the B-schedule of property is a portion of
the A-scheudle of property and whether they are clear with
their case.
7.With regard to this, the evidence of PW1 runs as
follows:
“nkw;brhd;d nfhtpej; uh$; cilahUf;F
ghj;jpag;gl;l 1/37y; 4 $f;ge;jpfSf;Fl;gl;L. 12 1-3 mst[s;s
,lj;ij uhkrhkp cilahh; tifawh tplkpUe;J vd; fzth;
gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;l fpua gj;jpu Kd;dpiyf;F fpuak;
th';fpapUe;jhh; vd;why; rhpjhd;/ rpdd
; jk;gp
tifawhtplkpUe;J vd; fzth; 27/05/96 njjpapll; fpua
gj;jpuk; Kd;dpiyf;F me;j brhj;ij fpuak; th';fpapUe;jhh;
vd;why; rhpjhd;/ nkw;brhd;d ,uz;L fpuak; K:yk; vd;
fztUf;F bkhj;jk; 37 1-3 mst[s;s brhj;Jf;fs; brhe;jk;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A. No. 840 of 2018
vd;why; rhpjhd;/ nkw;brhd;d mry; Mtz';fs; jhd; fpua
gj;jpu';fs; th/rh/M/4. 5/ nkw;brhd;d brhj;Jf;fs; KGtJk;
145-2V y; ml';fpa brhj;Jf;fs; vd;why; rhpjhd;/
nkw;brhd;d rh;nt vz; 145-2V?y; th/rh/M/4. 5
Kd;dpiyf;F fpuak; bgw;w 37 1-3 gug;gst[ ,lj;ij jtpu
ntW epy';fs; vd; fztUf;F brhe;jk; fpilahJ”
Thereby, as reiterated by the defendants, the first
plaintiff's husband had purchased only 37 1/3 in S.No.145/2A
and he is entitled only for that portion alone. Moreover, from
the explicit admission of PW1 also, this court observes that,
the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment only with
regard to the extend purchased by the first plaintiff's husband
by way of two sale deeds 31.07.1989 and 27.05.1996. The
plaintiffs ought to have preferred an application for
appintment of Advocate Commissioner to prove that, the B-
schedule of property is not a portion of the A-schedule of
property and only if the advocate commissioner measures the
properties, it would be brought to light whether the plaintiffs
are in possession and enjoyment, it would be brought to light
whether the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the
B-schedule of property. The plaintiffs have not proved that
they are in possession and enjoyment of the southern 0.12
acres in S.No.145/2A. On perusal of the back files, this court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A. No. 840 of 2018
observes that, the plaintiffs have filed petition in IA 220/2011
and the same was allowed by this court. But, since the
plaintiffs did not take any steps to measure the lands the
application was dismised. The plaintiffs filed another
application IA 455/2011 and the same was allowed with a
direction to deposit the remuneration in CCD account and
since the plaintiff's did not comply the condititonal order, this
petition was also dismissed on 15.07.2011. Thereby, the
failure on the part of the plaintiffs to take up the commission
work is also inclined to draw an adverse inference against the
plaintiff that, if they had any bonafides in their case, they
would have proved their case by taking steps for commission
work. The plaintiffs have not proved that they are in
possession and enjoyment of the B-schedule of property
through sufficient docuements.
8.The plaintiffs have alleged that, the defendants
claim right over the B-schedule of property through the
ficititious sale deed dated 06.07.2005 alleged to have been
purchased from V.T.Muralidharan, S/o.Tharagabrammam.
The plaintiffs have alleged that, there is no such person as
V.T.Muralidharan. In order to prove this sale deed, the
defendants have filed dated 06.07.2005 and they have also
examined the said Muralidharan as DW3. On perusal of the
chief evidence of DW3, this court observes that, the father's
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A. No. 840 of 2018
name of V.T.Muralidharan is mentioned as
Tharagabrammam and he is also been examined. The
defendants have proved that there is a person named
Muralidharan, who is son of Tharagabrammam and he has
also deposted about this case, which disproved the allegation
of the plaintiffs that there is no such person as
V.T.Muralidharan. Further, this court also observes that, the
plaintiffs cannot pick holes on the case of defendants and they
have to prove their case through sufficient evidence.
9.With regard to the cause of action, this court has
to look into the available evidence with regard to whether the
defendants had encroached upon the B-schedule of property
and whether they had destroyed the tomato crops. The
plaintiffs ought to have alleged the specific date of
occurrence and this court has to look into whether they have
proved the encroachment by the defendants and about the
destroying of the tomato crops. When PW1 was question with
regard to this, she had stated,
“ehd; mDgtpj;J tUk; 37 1-3 gug;gst[s;s
,lj;jpw;F bjw;F g[wj;jpy; jhd; tHf;F gp?ml;ltiz
brhj;J cs;sJ/ ve;j njjp khjj;jpy; gp?ml;ltiz
brhj;ij gpujpthjpfs; mj;JkPwp EiHe;J gaph;fis ehrk;
bra;Jtpll; hh;fs; vd;w tptuk; bjhpahJ/ Mdhy; Ie;J
tUlk; Kd;g[ mt;thW ele;jJ/ gp/th/rh/M/12 rk;ke;jkhd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A. No. 840 of 2018
g[fhhpd; efiy ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jhf;fy; bra;a tpyi
; y”
If the defendants had encroached upon the suit
property and if they had destroyed teh tomota crops, PW1
would have lodged complaint with regard to the same. In
stead, the plaintiffs have filed only the CSR No.164/2006,
which is dated 29.08.2006. PW1 has clearly admitted that,
the defendants destroyed the crops before five years and that
would be in an around 2000 or 2001. If it is so, the Plaintiffs
ought to have filed this suit earlier in the year 2000 and they
would have lodged the complaint before the filing of the suit.
But, the plaintiffs have filed this uit only in 2006 and they
have lodged the complaint only on 29.08.2006, thereby
disproving the cause of action. The non production of the
complaint on the side of the plaintiff also disprove the
destruction of tomato crops. The plaintiffs have failed to
prove the cause of action and there arises a suspicion with
regard to whether the cause of action is true.
10.The plaintiffs have denied the fact that, the B-
schedule of property is a portion of the A-schedule of
property. But, at one point of time, she has admitted that the
alleged B-schedule of property is situated on the southern
side of the 37 1/3 extent, which belongs to them. From the
explicit admissions of PW1, this court observes that, the
plaintiffs have failed to identify the B-schedule of property
and they have failed to prove that the B-schedule of property
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A. No. 840 of 2018
belongs to them and they have also failed to prove teh
possession and enjoyment over the B-schedule of property
through sufficient evidence and in the absence of evidence,
this court infers that, the B-schedule of property does not
belongs to them and they are not entitled for Declaration.
This issue is answered accordingly.”
9.On perusal of the judgment passed by the Trial Court, it could be
seen that the Trial Court has elaborately dealt with both the oral and
documentary evidence. The deposition of P.W.1, shows that she is in
enjoument of 0.37 1/3 cents of land and 12 cents in “B” schedule property
situated in sourthern side of her property. Further, she has clearly deposed
that she is not aware when the defendants trespassed into appellant's land and
destroyed the tomato crops. Therefore, the Trial Court has come to the
conclusion that the plaintiffs have not proved their case and further held that
the plaintiffs/appelants herein is in enjoyment of 0.37 1/3 cents. Since P.W.1
does not aware about the encroachment, she cannot claim anything more than
the extent mentioned in the “A” schedule property. Further the entitlement of
“B” schedule property by the respondnets also not proved by way of
documentary evidence. By the documents produced by the appellants, it
could be seen that the appellants are trying to make out the case that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A. No. 840 of 2018
defendants are not entitled for the “B” schedule property when the defendants
encroached the same. Therefore, it is for the appellants to prove the case.
When the appellants are already holding 0.37 1/3 cents as stated above, they
do not have any claim more than that and all these aspect are considered by
the Trial Court in the reasonable manner.
10.At this juncture, it is also relevant to extract Paragraph Nos. 22
and 24 of judgment passed by the Appellate Court.
22/ Mdhy; mnj rkaj;jpy; nkw;go thjpfs; jug;gpy;
jhth @[email protected] ml;ltizr; brhj;ijg; bghWj;J. nkw;go @[email protected]
ml;ltizr; brhj;jhdJ. Jhth @[email protected] ml;ltizr; brhj;jpd;
xU gFjp vd;Wk;. mijj;jhd; gpujpthjpfs; j';fgpuk;kj;jpd;
kfd; KuspjudpljpUe;J gp/th/rh/M/12?d; K:ykhf fpiuak;
bgw;w gpd;g[ j';fs; epyj;jpy; mj;JkPwp gpuntfpj;J mDgtpj;J
tUjpd;whh;fs; vd;Wk; Twpa[s;snghjpYk;. mijg; bghWj;J
gpujpthjpfs; jug;gpy; thjpfSf;F ghj;jpakhd 0/37 1-3
brd;l; epyk; thpjfS;fF ghjpag;gl;l ,lk; vd;gijg;
bghWj;J j';fS;fF Ml;nrgiz Vjkpy;iy vd;Wk;. thjpfs;
me;j brhj;ij mDgtpg;gjpYk;. mth;fshy; chpik nfhhp
cs;sjpYk; j';fSf;F vt;tpjkhd Ml;nrgiza[k; ,y;iy
vd;Wk;. thjpfSf;F ghj;jpakhd jhth @[email protected] ml;ltizr;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A. No. 840 of 2018
brhj;ijg; bghWj;J. jh';fs; ve;jfhyj;jpYk; vt;tpjkhd
chpika[k; nfhhpajpy;iy vd;Wk;. thjpfshy; fpiuak; bgwg;gl;l
jhth @[email protected] ml;ltizr; brhj;jpy; cs;s 0/37 1-3 brd;l;
,lk; nghf. kPjKs;s ghfj;ij tPugj;jpud;. fnzrd;.
Rpdd
; bghz;Qq Mfpnahh;fs; fpiuak; bgw;Ws;sjhft[k;.
tPugj;jpud; fpiuak; bgw;w brhj;ij jw;nghJ fzgjpghg[
fpiuak; bgw;W mDgtpj;J tUtjhft[k;. nkw;go Kf;fpakhd
egh;fis thpjfs; ,e;j tHf;fpy; nrh;f;fhky; jhf;fy;
bra;Js;sJ thjpfspd; thHf;F ghjpf;fg;gl;Ls;sJ vd;Wk;.
nkyk; thjpfshy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;s tHf;fpy; rh;nt
vz;/145-2V?y; cs;s epyk; KgtJk; ePjpkd;w Mizah;
kw;Wk; rh;ntah; Kd;dpiyapy; mse;J ghh;j;jhy;jhd;. jh';fs;
me;j brhj;Jf;fspy; vt;tpjkhd Mf;fpuk;g;g[k; bra;atpy;iy
vd;gJ bjhpe;JtpLk; vd;Wk;. Mdhy; ,e;j tHf;fpy; thjpfs;
ntz;Lbkd;nw mt;thW tHf;fwp"h; Mizaiu epakpj;J.
rh;ntah; cjtpa[ld; mse;J ghh;f;Fk; eltof;if
,Jehs;tiuapy; ,e;j tHf;fpy; @[email protected] ml;ltizr; brhj;ijg;
bghWj;Jk;. @[email protected] ml;ltizr; brhj;jhdJ. Jhth @[email protected]
ml;ltizr; brhj;jpy; Xh; m';fk; vd;gijg; bghWj;Jk;. mjpy;
gpujpthjpfs; jhth @[email protected] ml;ltizr; brhj;jpy; Xh; m';fkhd
@[email protected] ml;ltizr; brhj;jpy; mj;JkPwp EiHe;J gpuntrpj;J
mDgtpj;J tUfpdw; hh;fs; vd;Wk;. mijg; bghWj;j epU:gpf;f
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A. No. 840 of 2018
jh';fs; tHf;fwp"h; Mizahiu epakpj;J jhth
brhj;Jf;fis rh;ntah; cjtpa[ld; mse;J epU:gpf;f Kaw;rp
vLj;jnghjpYk;. tHf;fwp"h; Mizah; jhth ,l';fSf;F
brd;W rh;ntah; cjtpa[ld; mse;J ghh;f;f Kaw;rp
bra;jnthJ. nkw;go tHf;fwp"h; Mizah; jhth ,l';fis
msg;gjw;F cz;lhd giHa tiuglk; tUtha; Jiwapduhy;
rh;ntah; K:yk; jhf;fy; bra;J tHf;fwp"h; Mizauhy;
rh;ntah; cjtpa[ld; jhth brhj;ij msf;f ,aytpyi
; y
vd;Wk; Twpa[s;shh;/
23/nkYk; nkw;go th/rh/1na jd;Dila FWf;F
tprhuizapy;. nkw;go rh;nt vz;/145-2V vd
nfhtpe;jcilahUf;F jdpahf gl;lh tH';fg;gl;lJ vd;Wk;.
nfhtpe;jDf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l 1/37 Vf;fhpy; 0/12 1-3 brd;l;
mst[s;s ,lj;ij uhkrhkp tifawhtplkpUe;J jd; fztd;
31/07/1989?y; fpiuak; bgw;Ws;shh; vd;Wk;. nkYk; 27/05/1996
njjpapl;l fpiua gj;jpuk; Kd;dpiyf;Fk; me;j brhj;jpy;
cs;s xU gFjpia fpiuak; th';fpa[s;shh; vd;Wk;. nkw;go
,U fpiua';fs; K:ykhf 0/37 1-3 mst[s;s brhj;Jf;fs;
brhe;jk; vd;Wk;. mit KGtJk; fpiuag; gj;jpu';fs;
th/rh/M/5/d; K:yk; rh;nt vz;/145-2V?y; ml';fpa
brhj;Jf;fs; vd;Wk;. rh;nt vz;/145-2V Md rh;nt vz;zpy;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A. No. 840 of 2018
cs;s th/rh/M/4. th/rh/M/5 fpiuag; gj;jpu';fs; Kd;dpiyf;F
fpiuak; bgw;w 0/37 1-3 gug;gst[s;s mlj;ijj; jtpu ntW
epy';fs; jd; fztUf;F brhe;jk; fpilahJ vd;Wk;.
nkw;brhd;d 0/37 1-3 brd;l; gug;gst[s;s gl;lh jd;
bgahpy;jhd; cs;sJ vd;Wk;. mDgtj;jpYk; cs;sJ vd;Wk;
xg;g[f; bfhz;Ls;s epiyapy;. nkw;go 0/37 1-3 brd;l;
gug;gst[s;s jhth @[email protected] ml;ltizr; brhj;ij bghWj;Jjhd;
1tJ thjpapd; fztuhd bt';fnlr cilahh; K:ykhf
fpiuak; bgw;W. Mij j';fs; bgahpy; gl;lh cs;sJ.
MdgtKk; cs;sJ vd;W xg;g[f; bfhz;Ls;s wpiyia
itj;Jg; ghh;f;Fk;nghJ. mijj; jtpu. nkw;go rh;nt vz;zpy;
jd; fztUf;F ntW brhe;jk; ,y;iy vd;W xg;g[f;
bfhz;Ls;s epiyia itj;Jg; ghh;;f;Fk;nghJ. nkw;brhd;d
rh;nt vz;/145-2V?y; thjpfshy; mDgtpj;J tUk; ,lk;
nghf. MjhtJ 0/37 1-3 brd;l; ,lk; nghf kPjKs;s
,l';fs; tPugj;jpud;. fnzrd;. rpdd
; bghz;Qq
Mfpnahh;fSf;F ghjpag;gl;l ,lkhf ,Ue;J. Mij tpwg; id
bra;Jtpll; jhft[k; Twpa[s;sijg; ghh;f;Fk;nghJ. nkw;go
thjpfshy; mDgtpj;J tUk; 0/37 1-3 brd;l; gug;gst[s;s
,lj;jpw;F bjd;gw[ j;jpYs;s tGf;F @[email protected] ml;ltizr; bfhj;J
vd;W th/rh/1Mnyna Fwf;F tprhuiz gf;fk; 5?y; xg;g[f;
bfhz;Ls;sijg; ghh;f;Fk;nghJ. mt;thW thjpfshy;. 1TJ
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A. No. 840 of 2018
thjpapd; fztuhy; fpiuak; bgwg;gl;l 0/37 1-3 brd;l;
mst[s;s ,lj;ijjhd; thjpfs; mDgtpj;J tUfpd;whh;fs;
vd;Wk;. mJjhd; jhth @[email protected] ml;ltizr; brhj;J vd;Wk;
xg;g[f;bfhz;Ls;sJ bjspthf bjhpatUfpd;wJ/
24/th/rh/1na jd;Dila Fwf;F tprhuizapy;. Ve;j
njjpapy;. Ve;j khjj;jpy; jhth @[email protected] ml;ltizr; brhj;jpy;
gpujpthjpfs; mj;JkPwp EiHe;J ehrk; bra;Jtpll; hh;fs; vd;w
tptuk; jdf;F bjupahJ vd;Wk;. tHf;F @[email protected] ml;ltizr;
brhj;ij jh';fs; mDgtpj;J tUtJ Fwpj;J mijg;
fhz;gpg;gjw;F ml';fy; Mtzj;ij ePjpkd;wj;jpy; jhf;fy;
bra;atpy;iy vd;Wk; xg;g[f; bfhz;Ls;sijg; ghh;f;Fk;nghJ.
nkYk; mtnu jd;Dila Fwf;F tprhuizapy;. rh;nt
vz;/1456-2Vy; bkhj;j tp!;jPuzk; 1/37 Vf;fh; epyk; vd;why;
rhpjhd; vd;Wk;. rh;nt vz;/145-2?y; bkhj;j tp!;jPuzk; 1/37
Vf;fhpy; gpujpthjpfs; vt;tpjkhd Mf;ukpg;gk[ ; bra;atpy;yi
vd;Wk;. nkw;go tptuk; ePjpkd;w Mizaiu epakpj;J
brhj;Jf;fis mse;J ghu;j;jhy;. bjupatUk; vd;Wk;.
gpujpthjpfs; jug;gpy; vjpu;tHf;Fiuapy; mt;thW
brhy;ypa[s;shh;fs; vd;Wk;. Mdhy; ,d;iwa njjptiuapy;
Mizaiu epakpf;f kD VJk; jhf;fy; bra;atpy;iy vd;why;
rhpjhd; vd;Wk; xg;g[f; bfhz;Ls;sijg; ghh;f;Fk;nghJk;.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A. No. 840 of 2018
Mtnu jd;Dila FWf;F tprhuizapy;. gf;fk; 6?y; filrp
thpapy;. jhth M ml;ltizr; brhj;jpd; xU gFjpjhd; gp
ml;ltizr; brhj;J vd;why; jtW vd;W xg;g[f;
bfhz;Ls;sijg; ghh;f;Fk;nghJk;. nkw;go jhth @[email protected]
ml;ltizr; brhj;jpd; KG tp!;jPuzKk; 1/37 brd;l; mst[
cs;sij 1tJ thjpapd; fztuhd bt';fnlr cilahh;
vd;gtuhy; 2 fpiuag; gj;jpu';fs; K:yk;. MjhtJ th/rh/M/4
kw;Wk; th/rh/M/5?d; K:yk; fpiuak; bgw;w mjd; mog;gilapy;.
Jhth @[email protected] ml;ltizapy; fz;l brhj;J Kgtija[k;
mDgtpj;J tUtjhft[k;. me;j brhj;Jf;fs; j';fs;
mDgtj;jpy; cs;sJ vd;gijg; bghWj;Jk; bjspthf
th/rh/1na jd; FWf;F tprhuizapy; xg;g[f; bfhz;Ls;s
epiyia itj;Jg; ghh;;f;Fk;nghJk;. nkw;go jhth @[email protected]
ml;ltizr; brhj;jhd 0/12 brd;ilr; bghWj;J vt;thW
thjpfSf;F ghj;jpak; vd;gijg; bghWj;Jk;. me;j brhj;Jjhd;
gpujpthjpfshy; thjpfspd; mDgtj;jpy; ,Ue;jjpy; mj;JkPwp
EiHe;J mDgtpj;J tUfpdw; hh;fs; vd;gijg; bghWj;Jk;
thjpfs; jug;gpy; xU tHf;fwp"h; Mizaiu epakpj;J
mjd;K:yk; jhth brhj;Jf;fis rh;ntah; cjpta[ld; mse;J
nkw;go thjpfSf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l 0/37 1-3 brd;ll; hd jhth
@[email protected] ml;ltizr; brhj;J KGtJk; thjpfspd; mDgtj;jpy;
,y;iy vd;Wk;. mjpy; cs;s xU gFjpahd 0/12 brd;i
; lg;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A. No. 840 of 2018
bghWj;J gpujpthjpfshy; mj;JkPwp gpuntrpj;J mDgtpf;fg;gl;L
mjpy; cs;s jf;fhsp gaph;fisa[k;. ,ju ku';fisa[k; btl;o
ehrg;gLj;jp. jw;nghJ mth;fs; mDgtj;jpy; cs;sJ vd;Wk;.
mJjhd; jhth @[email protected] ml;ltizr; brhj;J vd;Wk;. me;j @[email protected]
ml;ltizr; brhj;Jjhd; jhth @[email protected] ml;ltizr; brhj;jp[d;
Xh; m';fk; vd;gijg; bghWj;Jk; thjpfs; jug;gpy; xU
tHf;fwp"h; Mizah; K:yk; xU tiuglKk;. mwpf;ifa[k;
jhf;fy; bra;J erpU:gpf;f jtwpa[s;sjp gl;rj;jpy;. nkw;go
thjpfshy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;l tHf;fpy;. jhth @[email protected]
ml;ltizr; brhj;J j';fSf;Fjhd; ghj;jpak; vd;gijg;
bghWj;J rhpahd Kiwapy; jf;f tha;bkhHp rhl;rpa';fs;
kw;Wk; Mtz rhl;oa';fs; K:ykhf epUg: pf;f jtwpa[s;shh;fs;
vd;nw ,e;ePjpkd;wk; fhz;gjhYk;. mijg; bghWj;J fPHik
ePjpkd;wKk; fz;Ls;sJ rhpahdnj vd;Wk;. vdnt
thjpfSf;F jhth @[email protected] ml;ltizr; brhj;ijg; bghWj;J
tpsk;gi
[ f ghpfhjk; fpilf;fj;jf;fjy;y vd;W ,e;ePjpkd;wk;
fz;Lzh;e;Jk;. mijg; bghWj;J fPHik ePjpkd;wKk; mt;thnw
fz;Ls;sJ rhpahdnt vd;nw ,e;ePkd;wk; fhz;gjhYk;.
nkw;go gpur;rid vz;/1?f;F thjpfSf;F vjpuhft[k;.
gpujpthjpfSf;F Mjuthft[k; jPht; [ fhzg;gLfpdw; J/”
11.A perusal of the judgment passed by the First Appelate Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A. No. 840 of 2018
confirms that the appellants are enjoying 0.37 1/3 cents and with regard to 12
cents mentioned in the “B” schedule property, the appellants have not proved
their case by producing proper documentary evidence.
12.Thus, this Court does not find any perversity in the judgment of
both the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court. Further, this Court does
not find any Substantial Questions of law that arises for consideration in the
present second appeal as proposed by the appellants herein. Hence, this
Second Appeal deserves for dismissal.
13.Accordingly, the Secon Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.01.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking Order / Non Speaking Order
rst
To
1.The Principal Sub Judge, Tiruvannamalai.
2.The Principal District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A. No. 840 of 2018
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY.J.,
rst
S.A.No.840 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.22973 of 2018
22.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
