Madras High Court
Shanmugam vs Ranganathan on 7 July, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 07.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
S.A.No.774 of 2008
1. Shanmugam
2.Ramadoss
3.Jansirani ...Appellants
Vs.
1.Ranganathan
2.Dhandapani ...Respondents
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure against the Judgment and Decree of the Principal
Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai in A.S.No.45 of 2006 dated
04.02.2008 in reversing the well considered Judgement and Decree of
the Court of the Additional District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai in
O.S.No.302 of 2003 dated 14.02.2006.
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
For Appellants : Mr.V.Raghavachari
For Respondents : Mr.R.Rajarajan
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs 2 to 4 are the appellants before this Court since the
1st plaintiff had expired pending the First Appeal. The Second Appeal
arises against the Judgement and Decree in A.S.No.45 of 2006 on the
file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai in and by
which the learned Judge had reversed the Judgement and Decree of the
Additional District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai in O.S.No.302 of 2003.
The parties for the ease of understanding are being referred in the same
ranking as in the suit. The facts in brief stated in the plaint are as
follows.
2. The plaintiffs had filed the suit O.S.No.302 of 2003 for a
declaration in their half share in the suit well and to direct the 1 st
defendant to deliver possession of the suit well to the plaintiffs. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
well in question is situate in S.No.390/2B2 originally S.No.390/2 of
Vedanthavadi Village, Tiruvannamalai District.
3.It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit well and lands
measuring a total extent of 6.38 acres in S.No.390/2 belonged to one
Rama Gounder. Rama Gounder had four sons, Kuppa Gounder,
Narayanasamy Gounder, Chinnasamy Gounder and Ponnusamy
Gounder. The four sons of Rama Gounder partitioned these properties
amongst themselves after the death of Rama Gounder. Kuppa Gounder
was enjoying an extent of 1.56 acres and Narayanasamy Gounder and
Chinnasamy Gounder each were enjoying an extent of 1.35 acres.
Ponnusamy Gounder got 2.12 acres along with the well.
4.Ponnusamy Gounder had died intestate and his 2.12 acres
devolved on his sons Chinnasamy and Raja. They had divided the suit
property equally. Chinnakulandai Ammal, the paternal grand mother
of plaintiffs 2 to 4 and mother-in-law of the 1st plaintiff purchased the
share of Chinnasamy. Chinnakulandai Ammal had purchased the share
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
of Chinnasamy under a sale deed dated 26.12.1951 and therefore she
become entitled to 1.06 acres of land in the survey number along with
half share in the well. After the death of Chinnakulandai Ammal her
property was divided between her sons Gopal Gounder and Arumuga
Gounder and the suit property was allotted to the share of Gopal
Gounder. Gopal Gounder is the husband of the 1st plaintiff and father
of the other plaintiffs.
5.The plaintiffs 1 to 3 sold the 1.06 acres inherited by them in
favour of the 2nd defendant under a registered sale deed dated
07.09.1990. However, they had retained a half share in the well for
themselves with the sole intent of irrigating their other lands with the
water from this well. The 4th plaintiff was not a party to this document
and she would reserve her right to file a separate suit challenging the
sale deed.
6.Govindasamy, the father of the 2nd defendant had purchased 60
cents of land from Raja Gounder son of Ponnusamy Gounder. By
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
reason of this purchase the 2nd defendant was the absolute owner of an
extent of 1.66 acres and a half share in the well situated in S.No.390/2.
Though the 2nd defendant was only an owner of an extent of 1.66 acres
he had sold an extent of 2.41 acres and the entire right in the suit well
in favour of the 1st defendant under a sale deed dated 21.07.2000. The
2nd defendant had no right to sell the excess extent of 75 cents as well
as the half share in the well.
7.The plaintiffs would submit that they are not bound by the sale.
The 1st defendant after obtaining the sale deed had tampered with the
channels of irrigation and prevented the plaintiffs from drawing of
water from the Well alleging that he was the owner of the entire well.
Therefore, the plaintiffs have been constrained to approach the Court.
8. The defendants 1 and 2 had filed a written statement inter alia
disputing the claim of the plaintiffs to the suit well. They would
further deny the extent allotted to the sons of Rama Gounder as being
false. The defendants would further submit that the extent of 1.06
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
acres and the half share in the Well was purchased by Chinnakulandai
Ammal. On her death it was being enjoyed by her son Gopal Gounder.
Gopal Gounder had alienated 53 cents in favour of one Jayaraman son
of Pachayappa Gounder. After the death of Gopal Gounder the
plaintiffs and the said Jayaraman had alienated the property purchased
by Chinnakulandai Ammal to the 2nd defendant under the sale deed
dated 07.09.1990. The entire property which is purchased by the
Chinnakulandai Ammal was conveyed to the 2nd defendant which
included the half share in the Well.
9. It is the further case of the defendants that the plaintiffs have
never enjoyed the suit well and on the contrary it was only the 2 nd
defendant who enjoyed the well and had therefore prescribed title to the
same. The defendants had also denied the contention of the plaintiffs
that the 2nd defendant had sold an extent of 75 cents in excess of the
property owned by the 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant having
purchased the same under a registered sale deed he had become the
absolute owner of the suit well. The defendant had raised the issue of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
limitation as well.
10. The Trial Court, namely, the Additional District Munsif,
Tiruvannamalai had framed the following issues:
(i)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a half share in the suit
well?
(ii)Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of declaration
and recovery of possession?
(iii)To what other relief the plaintiffs are entitled to?
11. The plaintiffs have examined P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked
Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4 in support of their case. On the side of the
defendants, D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4
were marked. The learned Additional District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai
on perusing the oral and documentary evidence had decreed the suit as
prayed for and aggrieved by this Judgement and Decree the defendants
had filed A.S.No.45 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Subordinate
Judge, Tiruvannamalai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
12.Pending the appeal, the 1st plaintiff had died and plaintiffs 2 to
4 were recognized as her legal representatives. The learned Principal
Subordinate Judge proceeded to reverse the Judgement and Decree of
the Trial Court and allowed the First Appeal. It is challenging this
Judgement and Decree that the plaintiffs are before this Court.
13.The above Second Appeal was admitted on the following
Substantial Question of Law:
“1.Whether the lower Appellate Court ought not to have
declared the plaintiffs right to the Well based upon their holdings and
irrigational facilities that they enjoy from it?
2.Whether the Lower Appellate Court ought not to have held that
the defendant No.1 had purchased a fraction of the rights in the land
and cannot usurp the rights of the plaintiffs to irrigate the lands from
the suit Well?”
14.Mr.V.Ragavachari, learned counsel for the plaintiffs would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
submit that a mere perusal of Ex.A.1 sale deed would clearly show that
the plaintiffs have not conveyed their right to the suit Well as the same
does not find reference in the schedule of properties. He would further
submit that the plaintiffs have clearly stated as to why they had retained
their interest in the Well despite selling the entire land. The plaintiffs
have stated that they have lands adjoining the suit property and water
from the suit well was being used for its irrigation.
15.He would further submit that a perusal of boundaries given in
Ex.A.1 would clearly show that the plaintiffs owned the property
adjoining the suit property. The defendants have not been able to
substantiate the defense that the sale deed dated 21.07.2000 also
covered the suit well. He would therefore submit that in the absence of
the defendants being able to prove their defense, which was contrary to
the documents, the Appellate Court had totally erred in reversing the
Judgement of the Trial Court. The learned Subordinate Judge has
proceeded on the basis of presumptions and inferences to come to the
conclusion that the suit well was also conveyed by the plaintiffs. He
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
would argue that the Appellate Court had also erred in placing burden
of proving the sale of the Well upon the plaintiffs when it is the
defendants who have to prove the same. He would therefore prayed for
setting aside the Judgement and Decree of the lower Appellate Court.
16. Per contra Mr.R.Rajarajan appearing on behalf of the
defendants / respondents would seek to support the Judgement of the
Appellate Court on the following grounds:
(i)There is evidence to show that it is only the defendants who
were drawing water from the well.
(ii)The plaintiffs have not proved the existence of the channel
and the drawing of water.
(iii)The conduct of the plaintiffs was not bonafide as they had
suppressed the fact that one Jayaraman had also joined the execution of
Ex.A.3 sale deed and that they have not been using the water from the
well.
(iv)That apart the 4th plaintiff had filed a suit against the
defendants and other plaintiffs for partition. He would argue that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
plaintiffs were colluding together to deprive the defendants of their
right to the suit well.
(v) The sale deed Ex.A.1 does not contain a reference that the
plaintiffs were retaining the share in the well.
17.For these reasons he would submit that the Appellate Court
was justified in allowing the appeal. He would vehemently argue that
if the plaintiffs have decided to retain their share in the suit Well the
same would have found mention in the recitals in the sale deed.
However, such a recital is not found. He would further submit that the
obliteration of the irrigation channel as alleged by the plaintiffs have
not been proved by them.
18. Heard the counsels and perused the records.
19. The issue involved in the above Second Appeal is whether
under Ex.A.1 sale deed the plaintiffs have conveyed their interest in the
suit Well to the 2nd defendant. A perusal of Ex.A.1 sale deed would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
indicate that what was conveyed by the plaintiffs and Jayaraman was
only an extent of 1.06 acres which constituted the share purchased by
Chinnakulandai Ammal. The valuation attached to the sale deed
Ex.A.1 only shows the value for the land and no value has been fixed
for the Well. This omission is glaring when Ex.B.1 is perused. In the
said sale deed the half share in the Well has been valued at Rs.25,000/-
and the motor pump sets and the service connection at Rs.6,000/-.
20. Further the plaintiffs have given reasons for not alienating the
well. It is their case that they have lands adjoining the suit Well which
they are irrigating from the suit well. This is evident from a perusal of
Ex.A.1 sale deed where the eastern boundaries is shown as the lands of
the plaintiffs. Ex.A.4, adangal extract would also indicate that the
plaintiffs own lands in S.No.390/2B1B in which they are also carrying
on agricultural operations.
21.Therefore, considering the fact that the sale deed does not
mention the sale of the well and also taking note of the fact that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
plaintiffs have proved the reasons for not alienating the same the
Appellate Court erred in presuming the sale deed Ex.A.1 included the
sale of the well. Therefore, the Substantial Question of Law Nos.1 and
2 are answered in favour of the plaintiffs. The Second Appeal is
allowed and the Judgement and Decree of the Appellate Court is set
aside. No costs.
07.07.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
kan
To
1.The Principal Subordinate Judge,
Tiruvannamala
2.The Additional District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
P.T. ASHA, J,
kan
S.A.No.774 of 2008
07.07.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
