Madras High Court
P.Ramanathan vs Backiyam(Died) on 24 September, 2021
SA.(MD)No.12 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 18/02/2022
Pronounced on : 04/03/2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.THARANI
S.A(MD)No.12 of 2017
P.Ramanathan ... Appellant
Vs
1.Backiyam(died)
2.Alageshwari
3.Sundaram
4.Murugan
5.Vennila
6.Vadivel
(Respondents Nos.4 to 6 are
brought on record as legal representatives
of the deceased first respondent vide
Court order dated 24.09.2021)
... Respondents/defendants
PRAYER :-
This Appeal Suit is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure
Code against the decree and judgment in A.S.No.42 of 2011 passed
by the Subordinate Court, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District dated
11.10.2013 confirming the decree and judgment in O.S.No.152 of
2007 passed by the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi dated
25.02.2011.
For Appellants : M/s.A.Haja Mohideen
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA.(MD)No.12 of 2017
For Respondents : Mr.K.Vamanan
Nos.2 to 6
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed against the order in A.S.No.42 of 2011
passed by the Subordinate Court, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District
dated 11.10.2013, confirming the decree and judgment in O.S.No.
152 of 2007 passed by the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi, dated
25.02.2011.
2.The appellant herein is the plaintiff in the suit. The
respondents 1 to 3 are the defendants in the suit and the
respondents 4 to 6 are the legal representatives of the deceased
first respondent.
3. A brief substance of the plaint is as follows:
The suit property belonged to the father of the plaintiff and
his brother Jeyaraman Chettiar. The suit property was allotted to
the share of the father of the plaintiff. The father of the plaintiff
had three sons and one daughter. The second defendant is the
daughter. The second defendant is the sister of the plaintiff. Since
sufficient sridhana articles were given to the second defendant, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA.(MD)No.12 of 2017
male issues entered into a partition on 24.03.1981 and they
executed a family arrangement document in the presence of
witnesses.
4.In the partition, the suit property was allotted to the share
of the plaintiff. On 07.04.2007, the defendants disturbed the
possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff seek for a prayer of
declaration of title and for permanent injunction against the
defendants and their men.
5. A brief substance of the written statement filed by the
defendants 2 and 3, adopted by first defendant is as follows:
In the description of the property, the survey number and the
boundaries are wrongly stated. The first schedule survey No.
100/9b the four boundaries are wrongly stated. The second
schedule, there is no such sub division as survey No.122/2C, in the
revenue records. The four boundaries mentioned in the second
schedule is also not correct. The properties are not in the
possession of the plaintiff. The properties are not allotted to the
plaintiff. The first schedule property belonged to another brother
of the second defendant by name Nadimuthu. The second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA.(MD)No.12 of 2017
defendant purchased the property from Nadimuthu, through a sale
deed dated 25.07.1982 and she got patta in her name. She planted
Eucalyptus trees and she had cut the grown up trees three times
and that she is in enjoyment of the property. There is no Survey
Number as 122/2C and the plaintiff is not in the possession of any
such property and prayed this petition to be dismissed.
6.The trial Court has framed the following issues:
i) whether the plaintiff is entitled to a relief of declaration and
injunction ;
ii) what are the other reliefs?
7.Two witnesses were examined and six documents were
marked on the side of the plaintiff. Two witnesses were examined
and 16 documents were marked on the side on the side of the
defendant. After trial, the trial Court has dismissed the suit.
8.Against the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff filed an appeal
in A.S.No.42 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Court,
Pudukottai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA.(MD)No.12 of 2017
9. The Subordinate Court framed the following issues:
i)Whether the appeal is to be allowed?
After hearing both sides, the appeal was dismissed by the
Subordinate Court, Pudukottai.
10. Against the order of the first Appellate Court, the
petitioner filed this Second Appeal.
11. The appeal was admitted on the following substantial
questions of law :
i)whether the judgment and decree of the Courts below are
sustainable since the respondents / defendants have not proved the
title of their predecessors by placing relevant records both oral and
documentary evidence?
ii)whether both the Courts below are right in dismissing the
suit in favour of the respondents / defendants when Ex.A6 family
arrangement was clearly proved ?
iii)whether both the Courts below are correct in dismissing
the suit based on the Revenue records Exhibit B2 to B16?
12.Issue No.1:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA.(MD)No.12 of 2017
(i)On the side of the appellant, it is stated that originally the
property belonged to the grandfather of the plaintiff by name
Muthukaruppan Chettiar. Muthukaruppan Chettiar has two sons.
One Jeyaraman Chettiar and Ponraman Chettiar. Ponraman
Chettiar had three sons by name, Ramanathan, Arunachalam and
Nadimuthu and one daughter by name Alageshwari who is the
second defendant in the suit. After the death of Ponraman
Chettiar, his sons partitioned the property by way of a family
arrangement dated 24.03.1981. The suit property was allotted to
the share of the plaintiff and the family arrangement was marked
as Ex.A6.
13.On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the second
defendant has created a false sale deed as if she has purchased the
property from the brother of the plaintiff by name Nadimuthu.
Based on that false sale deed, the second defendant obtained patta
Ex.B4 and she paid the taxes. The tax receipts, marked as B6 to
B16 are based only on the patta. Revenue records are not
documents of title. Ex.B1 sale deed is not valid since the seller of
the property is not the owner of the property. The plaintiff has no
knowledge of the mutation of the revenue records in the name of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA.(MD)No.12 of 2017
the second defendant. The trial Court has observed that there was
no documents to prove that the second schedule property belonged
to the plaintiff and that there was no Sub division in Survey No.
122/2. The trial Court came to a wrong conclusion that the
defendant is entitled to the property on the basis of revenue
records. Out of the total extent of 115 cents, Arunachalam was
allotted 55 cents and the plaintiff and Nadimuthu were allotted 30
cents each. Ex.A6 was not properly appreciated by the trial Court
and by the first Appellate Court and pray the appeal to be allowed.
14. On the side of the respondent it is stated that the second
defendant purchased the property from her brother Nadimuthu
through a sale deed dated 27.05.1982. After the registration of the
sale deed, patta was transferred to her name. She was in
possession and enjoyment of the property and she is paying the
taxes. The partition deed Ex.A6 is not a registered document. It is
only an unregistered agreement. The document was not proved. An
unregistered document need not be taken into consideration and
the four boundaries mentioned in the Ex.A6 were not tallying the
four boundaries of the first schedule property. There is no such
sub division as mentioned in the second schedule property. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA.(MD)No.12 of 2017
plaintiff who is claiming to be in possession, is not aware of the
four boundaries whereas the defendant proved the title and
possession through Ex.B1 to B16 and pray the appeal to be
dismissed.
15. It is the duty of the plaintiff to prove the suit but the
appellant herein has raised a question stating that the defendants
have not proved the title of their predecessors. There is no
necessity for the defendant to prove title or possession and hence
this question raised by the appellant is not sustainable.
16.On the side of the appellant, it is stated that Ex.A6 family
arrangement clearly reveals that the property belongs to the
plaintiff and not to the predecessors of the second defendant.
17.The family arrangement Ex.A6 is an unregistered
document dated 13.04.1981. Even in the year 2001, the plaintiff is
aware of the transfer of patta in the name of the second
respondent. The certified copies of the documents Ex.A1 to 5 were
obtained by the plaintiff, on 08.08.2001, but the suit was filed only
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA.(MD)No.12 of 2017
in the year 2007. Plaintiff has failed to file the suit immediately
after he came to the knowledge of the sale deed.
18.The four boundaries and the description of the property
was questioned by the defendants in the written statement. But the
plaintiff did not come forward to rectify the defects. Except Ex.A6,
no other document was filed to prove either the title or possession
of the plaintiff. It is the duty of the plaintiff to prove the case. The
defendants has filed Ex.B1, a sale deed dated 27.05.1982 and
Ex.B4 to B 16 revenue records. There is no necessity for the
defendants to prove the case. There is no necessity for deciding
the title of the defendants. In total Ex.A1 to 6, are insufficient to
decide the title of the plaintiff. The trial Court has dismissed the
suit since the description of property is not correct and Ex.A6 is not
properly proved.
19.The questions raised by the appellant are only questions of
fact and not questions of law. In the light of the above
circumstances, there is no reason sufficient enough to interfere
R.THARANI, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA.(MD)No.12 of 2017
pnn
with the orders of the trial Court which was subsequently,
confirmed by the first Appellate Court. For the above said
reasons, this Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
(R T J)
04.03.2022
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
pnn
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 Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai, Pudukottai District.
2.The District Munsif, Aranthangi.
2.The Record Clerk, Vernacular Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
ORDER
IN
S.A(MD)No.12 of 2017
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
