Madras High Court
Muthiah Pillai vs Balakrishnan on 25 January, 2021
S.A.No.1466 of 1999
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.01.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
S.A.No.1466 of 1999
Muthiah Pillai .. Appellant
/versus/
1. Balakrishnan
2. Kannammal (Died)
3. Kasi Ammal
4. Murugan
5. Seenu
6. Murthi
7. Karpagam
8. Manigandan .. Respondents
(R4 to R8 brought on record as LR's of the deceased R2
Viz., Kannammal vide Order date 29.01.2020 made in
C.M.P.Nos.1408, 1412 & 1415 of 2020 in S.A.No.1466
of 1999).
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against
the Judgement and decree passed on 21.09.1998 in A.S.No. 53 of 1991
on the file of Subordinate Court, Tindivanam confirming the judgement
and decree passed on 21.12.1990 in O.S.No.103 of 1985 on the file of
the District Munsif, Gingee.
For Appellant : Ms.R.V.Rukmani for P.B.Balaji
For Respondents : No appearance
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1466 of 1999
JUDGMENT
The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant herein. For the sake
of convenience, parties are referred as per the ranking before the trial
Court.
2.The appellant / plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and for
permanent injunction on the ground that the suit property was purchased
by the plaintiff under oral sale and one Mr.Mannangatti is in possession
and enjoyment of the suit property and also perfected the title by adverse
possession and for consequential relief of injunction.
3.The respondent filed a written statement alleging that based
upon the sale deed executed by Gopal and others in favour of
Kuppammal and also based upon the sale deed of the LR's of
Kuppammal viz., Kasi Ammal., the first defendant is the absolute owner
and marked Ex.B1 to B3 to show that they are in possession and
enjoyment of the suit property.
4.The trial Court has framed necessary issues and decided that
since the alleged oral sale deed is for the amount of Rs.700/-, it is hit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act and also stated that the
S.A.No.1466 of 1999
document marked as Ex.A10 does not reflect the possession of the
plaintiff. Accordingly, the suit has been dismissed and the said finding
has been confirmed by the Lower Appellate Court in A.S.No.53 of 1991
and hence, the Second Appeal. The Above Second Appeal is admitted on
the following substantial questions of law;
" (i) The Lower Court, having held that the
Appellant has established his case as stated in the plaint
by both documentary and oral evidences which by
necessary implication accept the case of the Appellant's
possession for over 20 years, from the date of oral sale
and possession in 1967 till the date of suit in 1985 and
therefore ought to have held tat the Appellant is entitled to
decree for declaration in respect of 3 1/3 cents.
(ii) Once it is held that the Appellant has
perfected title by adverse possession in respect of 31/4
cents even as against the true owner Mannangatti Pillai,
any sale by the heirs of the Mannangatti Pillai (widow 3d
Respondent and his son) will not pass a valid title and
therefore, Ex.B2 is not a valid Sale Deed and on this
ground, the lower Appellate Court ought to have rejected
the case of the respondents and decreed the suit of the
Appellant as prayed.
(iii) In view of the above, the appreciation to
evidences both documentary and oral, the Lower
Appellate Court is improper, illegal and perverse and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
same requires re-assessment and re appreciation in the
S.A.No.1466 of 1999
proper perspective."
5. Heard Ms.R.V.Rukmani for P.B.Balaji learned counsel for
the appellant.
6.The learned counsel for the appellant would draw my
attention to provisions and also the evidence of PW1 and Ex.P9. The
learned counsel has vehemently argued that after the purchase of 3 ¼
cents from the wife of the 3rd respondent, son of Mannangatti Pillai, on
26.06.1984, the appellant/plaintiff has perfected the title and also
contended that since the appellant is there for over 16 years from the
date of the sale and his possession from the year 1967, they have
perfected the title by adverse possession also.
7.This Court has considered the contentions raised by the
learned counsel for the appellant / Plaintiff. On perusal of the pleadings
and evidence of PW1, it is seen that it is a specific case that he is alleged
to have purchased the suit property for a sum of Rs.700/-. As per Section
54 of the Transfer of Property Act, sale of immovable property can be
made by a registered document only when the sale consideration is more
than Rs.100. When the alleged oral sale in favour of the plaintiff is more
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1466 of 1999
than Rs.100/-, the same cannot be legally sustainable as it requires a
document that too a registered document. In the absence of any
documentary evidence, declaration of title, based upon the oral sale for a
consideration more than Rs.100 is not sustainable. Hence, I find that the
finding rendered by the both Courts below are perfectly valid in law and
hence, I find that the major contention put forward by the learned
counsel for the appellant does not stand for legal reasoning in view of
the specific provision, under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act
coupled with Section 9.
8.The next point is with regard to adverse possession. It is
evident from the records, nowhere he claims that he is in possession of
the property for more than 16 years. The sale deed is in favour of the
defendant herein. It is a specific case of the appellant / plaintiff that even
before Ex.B.2, the plaintiff has preferred the title by adverse possession
as against the vendor of the defendant and relied upon Ex.A1 to Ex.A8.
9.As observed by both Courts below, it is only a oral sale and
his name has also not been mentioned in the patta and the submission
that the payment made is also not proved as observed by the trial Court,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1466 of 1999
which are found to be adverse in the case of the appellant. Furthermore,
on the point of Ex.A10 patta pass book, the learned Judge has
specifically observed that there is a material alteration. The Lower
Appellate Court at Para 13 has specifically stated that the name of the
pattadhar in S.No.8 has been deleted and the names of the Mannangatti
and the vendor of the defendants appear to be corrected assume
significance and hence, taking note of descrepancy found in Ex.A10
patta pass book, both the Courts below has rightly come to the
conclusion that Ex.A10 is not a valid document.
10.In the absence of any positive legal evidence to show that
the appellant is in possession of the suit property even before the sale of
the property in favour of the defendant and instead, he has failed to show
adverse possession and by legally acceptable documents, both the Courts
below have rightly come to the conclusion that the plea of adverse
possession has not been proved in the manner known to law.
11.Accordingly both the Courts rejected the contentions of the
plaintiff and after going through the reasons assigned by the lower
Courts, I do not find any merit in this case. The substantial questions of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
law framed does not arise for consideration and in this view of the
S.A.No.1466 of 1999
matter, the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
25.01.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
kmm
To
1. The Subordinate Court, Tindivanam.
2. The District Munsif, Gingee.
RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.No.1466 of 1999
kmm
S.A.No.1466 of 1999
Dated:25.01.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
