Madras High Court
Murugaiyan vs Vaithialingam on 4 March, 2021
S.A.No.1648 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:04.03.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
S.A.No. 1648 of 2008
and
M.P.No.1 of 2008
Murugaiyan,
S/o, Ramalingam,
Rep. By his Power Agent,
Sentrani,
W/o, Murugaiyan,
Karuveppencheri Village,
Thiruthuraipoondi Taluk. ...
Appellant
Vs.
1. Vaithialingam
S/o, Ramalingam
2. Rani,
W/o, Ramalingam
Both 1 and 2 residing at
Karuveppencheri Village,
Thiruthuraipoondi Taluk.
1/8
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.1648 of 2008
3. Sundarajan,
S/o, Rajagopalpillai
Keezhapandi Post,
Thiruthuraipoondi Taluk. ... Respondents
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the
judgment and decree dated 04.07.2008 made in A.S.No.17 of 2007 on the
file of the Sub-court, Mannarkudi confirming the judgment and decree dated
30.07.2007 made in O.S.No.266 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif
Court, Thiruthuraipoondi.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Rajaramani
For R1 & R2 : Mr.V.Raghupathi
For R3 : No appearance
JUDGMENT
Challenge in this second appeal is made to the judgment and decree
dated 04.07.2008 passed in A.S.No.17 of 2007 o the file of the Subordinate
Court, Mannarkudi confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2007
passed in O.S.No.266 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Thiruthuraipoondi.
2. The unsuccessful plaintiff in both the Courts below is the appellant.
3. Suit for declaration, possession, permanent injunction and future
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.1648 of 2008
mense profits in respect of the plaint schedule properties.
4. The suit having come to be laid by the plaintiff for the main relief of
declaration and for the consequential reliefs, at the foremost, the plaintiff has
to establish his claim of title to the suit properties.
5. Considering the pleas and materials placed on record, it is found
that the plaintiff claims title to the plaint schedule properties comprised in A
and B schedule based on the patta said to have been issued in his favour
marked as Ex.A4. Ex.A4 is found to be only a rough patta. The rough patta
cannot be considered as the document of title. It has not been established by
the plaintiff as to whether any regular patta had been issued in his favour
following Ex.A4 rough patta. Therefore, when the plaintiff seeks to sustain
his case based on the rough patta, which cannot be considered as a title
document, on that score alone, as rightly concluded by the Courts below, the
plaintiff is to be non-suited.
6. In addition to that, as rightly reasoned by the Courts beow, the
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.1648 of 2008
plaintiff has not even correctly given the description of the suit properties,
particularly, the survey numbers within which they are lying and it is found
that the issue between the parties is only pertaining to 9 cents in S.No.73/22
and 20 1/3 cents lying in S.No.73/14. The Village Administrative Officer
examined as P.W.2, in his evidence would state that the plaintiff's house is
lying in S.No.73/22, however the plaintiff would claim the relief of
permanent injunction as regards the plaint A schedule property describing
the same as lying in S.No.73/14 and new S.No.73/26. The abovesaid facts
had been in detail considered by the Courts below and therefore when the
plaintiff has not even come forward with the clear case, with reference to the
description of the suit property as contemplated under Order VII Rule 3
CPC, therefore, the tax receipts and the current charge bills projected by the
plaintiff in support of his case by themselves would not be safe to hold that
the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the plaint A schedule property
as sought to be putforth by him.
7. The Courts below had also gone into the question of title of the
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.1648 of 2008
defendants and on the basis of the available materials, determined that the
defendants have established their claim of title to the suit property based on
the sale deed as detailed in the judgment and the abovesaid determination of
the Courts below based on the factual matrix and when they are not shown
to be in any manner, perverse, illogical and irrational, at this stage of the
second appeal, I am not inclined to interfere with the same.
8. At the foremost, the plaintiff having miserably failed to establish his
claim of title to the suit properties other than marking the rough patta as
Ex.A4, when the Courts below had for good reasons, rejected Ex.A4 patta
and accordingly also assigned acceptable reasons for upholding the
defendants' claim of title to the property in issue, all put together, the reasons
and determination of the Courts below, for rejecting the plaintiff's case and
upholding the defence version, in my considered opinion, do not warrant
any interference.
9. For the reasons aforestated, no substantial question of law is
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.1648 of 2008
involved in this second appeal.
10. In conclusion, the judgment and decree dated 04.07.2008 passed
in A.S.No.17 of 2007 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Mannarkudi,
confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2007 passed in O.S.No.266
of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thiruthuraipoondi are
confirmed. Resultantly, the second appeal is dismissed with costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.
04.03.2021
mfa
Index:yes
Internet:yes
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.1648 of 2008
To
1. The Subordinate Judge,
Sub-court,
Mannarkudi.
2.The District Munsif,
District Munsif Court,
Thiruthuraipoondi.
Copy to
The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court,
Chennai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.No.1648 of 2008
T.RAVINDRAN, J.
mfa
S.A.No. 1648 of 2008
and
M.P.No.1 of 2008
04.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
