Madras High Court
T.R.Chandramoorthy vs T.R.Ramamoorthy on 23 June, 2021
1 S.A.Nos.563 to 565 OF 2000
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
S.A.Nos.563 to 565 of 2000 and
C.M.P.(MD)Nos.5113 & 5114 of 2000
S.A.No.563 of 2000
T.R.Chandramoorthy ... Appellant/Appellant/
3rd Defendant
Vs.
1. T.R.Ramamoorthy
2. T.R.Sathyamoorthy(died)
3. T.R.Krishnamoorthy ... Respondents 1 to 3/
Respondents 1 to 3/
Plaintiffs 1 to 3
4. Government of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by the District Collector,
Madurai Collector Office,
Madurai.
5. The Tahsildar,
Melur Taluk,
Taluk Office Building,
Melur. ... Respondents 4 & 5/
Respondents 4 & 5/
Defendants 1 & 2
6. T.S.Santha Mai
7. P.A.Hamsa
8. T.K.Amutha
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/16
2 S.A.Nos.563 to 565 OF 2000
9. T.S.Udaya Kumar
10. P.Kumaravel
11. K.Rakesh Raja ... Respondents 6 to 11
(R-6 to R-11 are brought on record as legal heirs of the
deceased R-2 as per the order dated 20.03.2019 in
C.M.P.(MD)No.2885 of 2019)
Prayer: Second appeal filed under Section 100 of
C.P.C., against the Common Judgment and Decree dated
14.10.1997 in O.S.No.447 of 1994 on the file of the District
Munsif Court, Melur as confirmed in the Common Judgment
and Decree dated 25.01.2000 in A.S.No.99 of 1998 on the file
of the II Additional Sub Court, Madurai.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Saravanan
For R-1 & R-3 : Ms.AL.Gandhimathi
For R-4 & R-5 : Mr.R.Ragavendar,
Government Advocate.
For R-6 to R-9
& R-11 : Mr.T.R.Subramanian
***
S.A.No.564 of 2000
T.R.Chandramoorthy ... Appellant/Appellant/
Plaintiff
Vs.
1. T.R.Ramamoorthy
2. T.R.Sathyamoorthy(died)
3. T.R.Krishnamoorthy
4. S.U.Chandramouli
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2/16
3 S.A.Nos.563 to 565 OF 2000
5. S.U.Mahendran ... Respondents 1 to 5/
Respondents 1 to 5/
Defendants 1 to 5
6. T.S.Santha Mai
7. P.A.Hamsa
8. T.K.Amutha
9. T.S.Udaya Kumar
10.P.Kumaravel(Died)
11.K.Rakesh Raja ... Respondents 6 to 11
(R-6 to R-11 are brought on record as legal heirs of the
deceased R-2 as per the order dated 20.03.2019 in
C.M.P.(MD)No.2886 of 2019)
... Respondents 6 to 11
Prayer: Second appeal filed under Section 100 of
C.P.C., against the Common Judgment and Decree dated
14.10.1997 in O.S.No.342 of 1996 on the file of the District
Munsif Court, Melur as confirmed in the Common Judgment
and Decree dated 25.01.2000 in A.S.No.100 of 1998 on the file
of the II Additional Sub Court, Madurai.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Saravanan
For R-1,R-3,
R-4&R-5 : Ms.A.L.Gandhimathi
For R-6 to R-9
& R-11 : Mr.T.R.Subramanian
***
S.A.No.565 of 2000
T.R.Chandramoorthy ... Appellant/Appellant/
Plaintiff
Vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3/16
4 S.A.Nos.563 to 565 OF 2000
1. T.R.Ramamoorthy
2. T.R.Sathyamoorthy(died)
3. T.R.Krishnamoorthy
4. S.S.Kuppumani(died)
5. K.Y.Muthumani ... Respondents 1 to 5/
Respondents 1 to 5/
Defendants 1 to 5
6. S.K.Subrama Iyer
7. Durga Rani
8. Kirithiga
9. Pragadeesh Babu
10.T.S.Santha Mai
11. P.A.Hamsa
12.T.K.Amutha
13. T.S.Udaya Kumar
14. P.Kumaravel(died)
15. K.Rakesh Raja ... Respondents
(R-6 to R-9 are brought on record as legal heirs of the
deceased R-4 as per the order dated 12.12.2018 in M.P.(MD)Nos.1 to
3 of 2013)
(R-10 to R-15 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased R-2 vide
Order dated 20.03.2019 in C.M.P.(MD)No.2887 of 2019)
... Respondents 6 to 11
Prayer: Second appeal filed under Section 100 of
C.P.C., against the Common Judgment and Decree dated
14.10.1997 in O.S.No.321 of 1996 on the file of the District
Munsif Court, Melur as confirmed in the Common Judgment
and Decree dated 25.01.2000 in A.S.No.98 of 1998 on the file
of the II Additional Sub Court, Madurai.
For Appellant : Mr.M.Saravanan
For R-1,R-3&R-5 : Ms.AL.Gandhimathi
For R-4, R-6 to
R-13 & R-15 : Mr.T.R.Subramanian
***
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4/16
5 S.A.Nos.563 to 565 OF 2000
JUDGMENT
The appellant in these second appeals is one
T.R.Chandramoorthy. The following genealogy will help to
understand the facts better:
GENEALOGY
MUTHU IYER
_______________________________________________________________________
RAMU IYER Subburam Iyer Ramudu Iyer Venkatachalapathi Iyer
(Died) (Died) (Died) (Died)
= = = =
Lakshmi Ammal T.S.Visalakshi Ammal T.R.Visalakshi- T.V.Visalakshi Ammal
(Died) Ammal (Died) (Died)
Rajaram(Died) No heirs No heirs
Ramamoorthy Sathiyamoorthy Krishnamoorthy Chandra- Muthumani Kuppumani
(Died) moorthy (died)
(Deft.1) (Deft.2) ( Deft-3) (plaintiff) (Deft.4) (Deft-5)
Santha Mai Subburam
Hamsa Amutha Nalini= Udhayakumar Durgarani Keerthi Pragadeesh
Kumaravel
(Died)
Rakesh Raja
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2. The suit schedule properties described in O.S.No.
342 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif, Melur, originally
belonged to the aforesaid Subburama Iyer. He passed away in
the year 1955. He was survived by his wife T.S.Visalakshi
Ammal. T.S.Visalakshi Ammal died in the year 1962. They did
not have any children. As per the provisions of the Hindu
Succession Act, the property devolved on the youngest brother
of Subburamu Iyer, namely, Venkatachalapathy Iyer.
Venkatachalapathy Iyer died in the year 1976. He was
survived by his wife T.V.Visalakshi Ammal and the property
was inherited by her. The stand of the appellant
Chandramoorthy is that T.V.Visalakshi Ammal sold the
aforesaid suit property to him vide Ex.A.13 sale deed dated
20.12.1985. His grievance is that though the suit property
became his absolute and exclusive property, his brothers,
namely, Ramamoorthy, Sathyamoorthy and Krishnamoorthy
chose to treat it as a joint family property and also unilaterally
dealt with the same. They had sold the portions of the same in
favour of third parties. The sold out portion was set out as the
first item in the suit schedule.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3. Seeking declaration that the sales made by his
brothers are null and void, the appellant Chandramoorthy filed
O.S.No.342 of 1996 before the District Munsif, Melur. He also
filed O.S.No.321 of 1995 seeking the relief of permanent
injunction. Since the patta was standing in the name of the
appellant Chandramoorthy, his brothers filed O.S.No.447 of
1994 for directing the Government to issue joint patta in the
names of the four brothers. The Government was shown as the
first defendant, while the Tahsildar, Melur was shown as the
second defendant. Chandramoorthy figured as the third
defendant. O.S.No.295 of 2014 was filed by the appellant
seeking removal of certain encumbrances found in the
revenue records. Since the four suits were interconnected,
they were tried together. The appellant examined himself as
P.W.1 and two other witnesses on his side and Ex.A.1 to
Ex.A.50 were marked. On the side of the defendants, five
witnesses were examined and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.58 were also
marked. The learned trial Judge after a consideration of the
evidence on record, by judgment and decree dated 14.10.1997
dismissed O.S.No.295 of 1994, O.S.No.324 of 1995 and
O.S.No.342 of 1996 which were filed by the appellant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Chandramoorthy. O.S.No.447 of 1994 was decreed as prayed
for.
4. It is stated that the judgment and decree made in
O.S.No.295 of 1994 was not challenged. In respect of the
judgments passed in the other three suits, the appellant filed
A.S.Nos.98, 99 and 100 of 1998 before the II Additional Sub
Court, Madurai. By judgment and decree dated 25.01.2000,
the appeals were dismissed and the decision of the trial Court
was confirmed. Challenging the same, these second appeals
have been filed.
5. The second appeals were admitted on the following
substantial questions of law:-
“1. Whether in law have not the Courts
below erred in overlooking that O.S.No.447 of
1994 is not maintainable as the issue of patta to
the appellant cannot be challenged in civil suit
and consequently, the civil Court has no
jurisdiction to decide the issue?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
2. Whether in law have not the Courts
below overlooked that the appellant has filed not
only his title deed but also various documents to
show his possession and enjoyment and his
possession and enjoyment are also admitted in
the statement?
3. Whether in law have not the Courts
below erred in overlooking Ex.A.4 to A.12, A.20
to A.26, A14 to A.19, A.40 to A.45 which clearly
establish the appellant's possession and
enjoyment?
4. Have not the Courts below erred in
overlooking that his registered sale deed in
favour of the appellant is Ex.A.13 is genuine and
acted upon and consequently the sale deed in
favour of defendants 4 and 5 is invalid as the
vendors had no title?”
6. Additional substantial questions of law were
framed as follows:-
“ 5. Is it not the wife T.S.Visalakshi
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Ammal entitled to succeed the property of her
husband?
6. If so, when the said T.S.Visalakshi
Ammal died without any issues, would not the
property devolve according to Section 15(2) of
the Hindu Succession Act? “
7. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that it cannot be disputed that the property of
Subburama Iyer eventually devolved on T.V.Visalakshi, wife of
his younger brother Venkatachalapathy Iyer. Ex.A.33 is the
sale deed executed by T.V.Visalakshi in favour of the appellant
Chandramoorthy. It is a registered document. T.V.Visalakshi
was entitled to deal with the property as she deemed fit. His
three brothers had no title in the suit property. Therefore, the
sale deed executed by them dealing with portions of the suit
property ought to have been nullified by the Court below. He
would also point out that the suit for directing the Government
to grant patta is also not maintainable. He would submit that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
the Courts below have failed to give due presumption that is
attached to any registered instrument. He called upon this
Court to answer the substantial questions of law in favour of
the appellant and allow these appeals by setting aside the
impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below.
9. Per contra the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents submitted that the impugned judgments do not
call for any interference.
10. I carefully considered the rival contentions and
went through the evidence on record.
11. The genealogy clearly sets out the relationship
between the parties. Muthu Iyer had four sons, namely, Ramu
Iyer, Subburama Iyer, Ramudu Iyer and Venkatachalapathy
Iyer. The suit property was purchased by Subburama Iyer out
of his own funds. The appellant has convincingly demonstrated
that in view of the operation of the Hindu Succession Act,
1956, the property eventually devolved only on T.V.Visalakshi.
If the appellant can establish that Ex.A.13 was executed by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
her, then the appellant's case will have to be accepted in toto.
The Courts below have held that the appellant has failed to
prove the due execution of Ex.A.13. The learned trial Judge
has given elaborate reasons as to why Ex.A.13 could not be
believed.
12. I am only exercising jurisdiction under Section
100 of C.P.C. The Courts below have concurrently found that
the appellant has failed to prove the due execution of Ex.A.13
by T.V.Visalakshi. I decline to interfere with such a concurrent
finding, as it has not been shown to be perverse. Once I
confirm that Ex.A.13 has not been duly executed, then the
case of the appellant has to go. He then has only undivided
share in the suit property along with his siblings. The other
brothers who also have only undivided shares could not have
executed the suit sale deeds. It is not the case of the
respondents that there was any oral partition among the
siblings. The logical conclusion is that each of brothers are
entitled to undivided share in the suit property. They could not
have conveyed specific portions of the suit property in favour
of third parties. To this extent, the findings of the Courts
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
below do not have internal consistency. If Chandramoorthy
did not establish his exclusive claim over the entire property
and he is entitled to only ¼th share, then the consequence is
that vendees under the sale deeds executed by the other
brothers will get only corresponding undivided shares. Those
sale deeds cannot bind the appellant. The vendees have to file
partition suits for working of their shares. O.S.No.342 of 1996
is partly decreed declaring that the sale deeds impeached in
the said suit are not binding on the appellant and that the
vendees will be entitled only to proportionate undivided share
of their vendors in the suit property. S.A.No.564 of 2000 is
partly allowed.
13. The suit properties are agricultural lands. Hence
the provisions of The Tamilnadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983
will apply. The said statute sets out the procedure for making,
amending, or deleting the entries in the patta pass book.
Section 14 of the Act reads as under:
“14. Bar of suits:- No suit shall lie against the
Government or any officer of the Government in respect
of a claim to have an entry made in any patta pass book
that is maintained under this Act or to have any such
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
entry omitted or amended:
Provided that if any person is aggrieved as to any right of
which he is in possession, by an entry made in the patta pass
book under this Act, he may institute a suit against any
person denying or interested to deny his title to such right,
for a declaration of his rights under Chapter VI of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963 (Central Act 47 of 1963); and the entry in the
patta pass book shall be amended in accordance with any
such declaration.“
Since the procedure for issuance of patta is laid down in
the statute itself, a suit for directing the revenue
authorities for issuing patta is not maintainable. The
person aggrieved must obtain a declaratory decree in
respect of his rights and thereafter move the authority
concerned who will be obliged to amend the entry in the
patta pass book in accordance with such declaration. In
O.S No. 447 of 1994, the prayer was for directing the
revenue authorities for issuing joint patta. Such a prayer
was clearly not maintainable. Therefore, the judgment
and decree made in O.S.No.447 of 1994 is set aside.
S.A.No.563 of 2000 is allowed. Since the parties are
brothers and no formal partition has taken place, they
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
are entitled to ¼th share each. It is well settled that no
co-sharer can seek injunction against the other co-
sharers in respect of posession. The judgment and
decree made in O.S.No.321 of 1995 is sustained. S.A.No.
565 of 2000 is dismissed.
14. It is made clear that the entire suit property as on
date belongs to the legal heirs of Ramudu Iyer. They will have
to work out their rights only through an independent suit for
partition. No costs.
23.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PMU
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the
copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To:
1. The District Munsif, Melur.
2. The II Additional Sub Judge, Madurai.
3. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
PMU
S.A.Nos.563 to 565 of 2000
23.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
