Anjalakshmi vs Kannan
2022 Latest Caselaw 6809 Mad

                                                                               S.A.No. 272 of 2022

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                 DATED: 01.04.2022

                                                      CORAM:
                                   THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
                                                 S.A. No.272 of 2022

                  Anandan (Died)
                  1. Anjalakshmi
                  2. Panchali
                  3. Parameswari                                                    .. Appellants

                                                          Vs.

                  1. Kannan
                  2. Giri
                  3. Suresh Babu
                  4. Dilli Babu
                  5. Pattammal (Died)                                             .. Respondents

                  (R1 to R4, the legal heirs of the deceased fifth respondent, are brought on
                  record vide order of the Court dated 28.01.2019 made in C.M.P. No.23676
                  of 2018 in S.A.Sr.No.62480 of 2018)

                            Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code,

                  1908, against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruttani

                  dated 08.09.2017 made in A.S. No.1 of 2016 against O.S. No.107 of 2006 on

                  the file of the District Munsiff Court, Tiruttani dated 17.08.2015.



                                    For Appellants        : Mr. D.Ashok Kumar


https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

                  1/10
                                                                                     S.A.No. 272 of 2022

                                                       JUDGMENT

The plaintiffs in the suit in O.S. No.107 of 2006 on the file of District

Munsif Court, Tiruttani are the appellants in the above second appeal. The

husband of first appellant is one Anandan who filed the suit in O.S. No.107

of 2006 for declaration of his title and consequential permanent injunction in

respect of the suit properties which are agricultural wet and dry lands and

residential buildings described as items 11 and 12 in Tiruvalangadu Village,

Tiruttani Taluk, Tiruvallore District.

2. The case of the appellants in the plaint is that the suit properties are

the ancestral properties of one Arumugha Reddy s/o. Murugappa Reddy. It is

the case of the appellants that the suit properties originally owned by

Murugappa Reddy who had three sons by name Sabapathy Reddy, Arumuga

Reddy and Abimanu Reddy. It is stated that the three sons of Murugappa

Reddy divided the family properties orally by metes and bounds and the suit

schedule properties were alloted to the share of Arumugha Reddy. Stating

that the first plaintiff alone is the legal heir of Arumugha Reddy, the suit was

filed for declaration of first plaintiff's title to the suit property. It is stated

that the father of first plaintiff Arumugha Reddy died on 10.12.1988. It is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No. 272 of 2022

also admitted that the fifth defendant is the legally wedded wife of

Arumugha Reddy.

3. The suit is contested by the fifth defendant on the ground that the

suit properties are not the ancestral properties of Arumugha Reddy. It is

further stated that by partition between Arumugha Reddy and his brothers,

the suit properties were allotted to Arumugha Reddy as his separate property

and that therefore, the suit properties are not the ancestral property of

Arumugha Reddy. It is also stated by the fifth defendant that the fifth

defendant alone is the legally wedded wife of Arumugha Reddy and that

Arumugha Reddy did not marry the first plaintiff's mother. It is further stated

that Arumugha Reddy had no male issues and that he died leaving behind his

wife, fifth defendant and her daughter as legal heirs. The fifth defendant also

pleaded that her husband Arumugha Reddy during his lifetime gifted the suit

property to her under a Registered settlement deed dated 20.04.1989. Stating

that the property was the self acquisition of Arumugha Reddy, the fifth

defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit as the suit for declaration of title is

not maintainable against the fifth defendant. It is also admitted that

defendants 1 to 4 are the grand children of fifth defendant through her only

daughter.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No. 272 of 2022

4. The trial Court, after framing necessary issues, held that the first

plaintiff failed to establish that the suit properties are the ancestral properties

and that there are no heirs to his father except him. The case of fifth

defendant is that she is the wife of Arumugha Reddy and that Arumugha

Reddy had already settled the suit properties namely Items 4 to 12 in her

favour by a registered settlement deed. In view of the findings as to the

character of the property and that Arumugha Reddy died leaving behind his

wife, the fifth defendant, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court even

though the status of first plaintiff as the son of Arumugha Reddy was

accepted. Hence, liberty was given to plaintiffs to file a suit for partition in

respect of certain properties with specific directions. Aggrieved by the

judgment and decree of the trial Court granting liberty to plaintiffs and the

findings, the defendants filed an appeal in A.S. No.1 of 2016 before the Sub

Court, Tiruttani. The lower appellate Court held that the plaintiff did not

prove that Arumugha Reddy had married the mother of first plaintiff. The

lower appellate Court found that the settlement deed in favour of fifth

defendant is proved by the fifth defendant and that she is in possession and

enjoyment of the same along with defendants 1 to 4. The lower appellate

Court also held in favour of the respondent that patta and revenue records https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No. 272 of 2022

stands in the name of fifth defendant in respect of Items 4,5,7 to 10 of the

suit schedule properties and that the 'A' Register is in the name of fifth

defendant as regards Items 1 to 11 of the suit schedule properties. After

independently considering the whole evidence, the lower appellate Court

allowed the appeal, finding that the suit properties are the exclusive

properties of fifth defendant, the wife of Arumugha Reddy and that the

plaintiffs are not entitled to any right as the plaintiffs failed to establish the

status of first plaintiff as the son of late Sri. Arumugha Reddy.

5. Aggrieved by the findings of the lower appellate Court, the legal

heirs of first plaintiff have preferred this appeal by raising the following

substantial questions of law:

“ 1. Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in law in saying that all the suit properties are self acquired properties of Arumugha Reddy without any valid and conclusive proof ?

2. Whether lower appellate Court is right in law in decreeing the appeal on the basis of conjectures and surmises regarding title to the suit property when the defendants did not prove their title over the suit property in a manner known to law?

3. Whether the Courts below are justified in completely omitting to note that the birth and death register are statutory certificates given under the birth and death registration Act and they are deemed to be valid and conclusive https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No. 272 of 2022

proof of entries made in the birth and death register and no evidence was let into prove the said certificates are false and hence the said certificates must be taken as a conclusive proof of birth of the plaintiff Anandan to Arumugha Reddy and also the date of death of Arumugha Reddy as 12.12.1988 ?”

6. The plaintiffs have come forward with a suit for declaration of title

and for consequential injunction in respect of the suit properties which

belonged to late Sri. Arumugha Reddy on the ground that he is the only son

of late Sri. Arumugha Reddy. In the course of evidence, it turns out that

Arumugha Reddy had married the fifth defendant and executed a registered

settlement deed in favour of fifth defendant in respect of almost all the major

properties which are described in the plaint. Though the first plaintiff

claimed to be the son of Arumugha Reddy, the appellants have not let in any

evidence to prove the factum of marriage between the first plaintiff's mother

and Arumugha Reddy. It is proved that Arumugha Reddy died on

07.04.1990. The question whether the plaintiff alone is the only legal heir is

answered against the plaintiff holding that the first wife of Arumugha Reddy

is alive and that the said Arumugha Reddy had executed a registered

settlement deed in favour of fifth respondent almost conveying his title to

the major items of properties. To get title to the suit properties, the plaintiffs

have to establish that the suit properties are the ancestral properties of

Arumugha Reddy and that the first plaintiff is the only son who is entitled to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No. 272 of 2022

inherit the property from his father and that the fifth defendant is not the

wife of Arumugha Reddy apart from disproving the settlement deed. In the

present case, suppressing the fact that Arumugha Reddy had married the

fifth defendant as his first wife and that a registered settlement deed had

been executed by Arumugha Reddy in favour of the fifth defendant, the

plaintiffs came forward with the suit but failed to prove their case. Though

the trial Court accepted the status of first plaintiff as the son of Sri.

Arumugha Reddy, dismissed the suit but granted liberty to the plaintiffs to

file a suit for partition in respect of certain properties. Aggrieved by the

findings of trial Court, the defendant alone filed an appeal in A.S. No.1 of

2016 and not the plaintiffs.

7. The lower appellate Court held against the plaintiffs and found that

the appellants have failed to prove their status as legal heirs of Arumugha

Reddy. When the appellants have not disputed the fact that the Arumugha

Reddy had married fifth defendant, the settlement deed stated to have been

executed by Arumugha Reddy in favour of fifth defendant is natural and this

Court finds no reasons to interfere with the well considered judgment of the

lower appellate Court. Before the trial Court, the wife of first plaintiff was

examined as P.W.1. In her evidence, she pleaded ignorance to many https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No. 272 of 2022

questions put to her. P.W.2 did not come for cross examination. Except the

computer patta obtained in 2004 and some documents after suit, there is no

cogent evidence to prove the case of plaintiffs. Defendants have examined

five witnesses and marked Ex.B1 to B17 to show that the revenue records

stands in the name of fifth defendant.

8. This Court is of the view that the appellants have come with a suit

for declaration of their title by suppressing material facts and the existence

of first wife of Arumugha Reddy under whom the plaintiffs' claim title. The

lower appellate Court considered the issue about the status of first plaintiff

whether he is the son of Arumugha Reddy. The lower appellate Court has

considered the pleadings, documents and oral evidence on both sides and

decided every issue against plaintiffs and allowed the appeal. Even the

evidence of P.W.1 does not help the plaintiffs to prove their status. On

proper appreciation of evidence, the lower appellate Court accepted the

entire case of defendants and held that the appellant / plaintiffs have failed to

prove their case. This Court is unable to find any legal infirmity in the

judgment of lower appellate Court. In view of the findings of Courts below,

this Court is unable to find any substance in any of the question of law

raised.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No. 272 of 2022

9. As a result, this second appeal is dismissed.

01.04.2022

bkn

Index: Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order

To:

1. The Subordinate Judge, Tiruttani.

2. The District Munsif, Tiruttani.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No. 272 of 2022

S.S.SUNDAR, J.,

bkn

S.A. No.272 of 2022

01.04.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis