Madras High Court
T.Sadhasivam vs S.Uthandi on 5 April, 2022
SA.No.285/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.04.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
SA.No.285/2022 & CMP.No.5884/2022
1.T.Sadhasivam
2.V.Rajendran
3.S.Rajaram
4.R.Pandiyan .. Appellants /
Defendants 4,
5, 10 & 21
Vs.
1.S.Uthandi
2.S.Selvaraj .. Respondents
/ Plaintiffs
Prayer:- Second Appeal preferred under 100 of CPC against the judgment
and decree of the learned III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Vridhachalam passed in AS.No.81/2019 dated 21.01.2020 confirming the
judgment and decree of the learned I Additional District Munsif, Cuddalore
at Vridhachalam dated 05.04.2018 made in OS.No.593/2008.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 1
SA.No.285/2022
For Appellants : Mr.T.Jayaramaraj
For Respondents/
Caveators : Mr.A.V.Raja
JUDGMENT
(1) The unsuccessful defendants 4, 5 10 and 21 in the suit in
OS.No.593/2008 on the file of the learned II Additional District
Munsif, Virdhachalam, are the appellants in the above Second
Appeal.
(2) The respondents herein, as plaintiffs, filed the suit in
OS.No.593/2008 for declaration of their title in the suit properties
and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the
defendants in the suit from interfering with their peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.
(3) The case of the plaintiffs in the plaint is that the suit properties
originally belonged to one Rajakannu and his four sons namely,
Subramanian, Rangasamy Padayachi, Gopal and Jagannathan. It is
stated that Subramanian, one of the sons of Rajakannu, is the father
of plaintiffs/respondents. From the averments in the plaint, it is
SA.No.285/2022
seen that the legal heirs of Rajakannu were in joint possession and
enjoyment of the suit properties and other properties by executing
mortgage aad other conveyance. It is the specific case of the
plaintiffs that there was an oral partition in the family among the
co-owners and that the suit property was allotted to the plaintiffs
who are the legal heirs of Subramanian.
(4) The suit was contested by the appellants and other defendants on
the ground that they obtained oral sale from the plaintiffs' father
and that the plaintiffs' father did not object to the enjoyment of the
defendants based on the oral sale. This Court is unable to find a
consistent stand taken by the appellants and other defendatns on
the basis of any documents in the written statement.
(5) The Trial Court, after framing necessary issues, specifically held
that the plaintiffs have proved their title obtained from their
predecessors in title and that they are in possession and enjoyment
of the suit property. The Trial Court also found that the revenue
records stand in the names of the plaintiffs. After holding that the
plaintiffs have proved their title and enjoyment, the Trial Court
SA.No.285/2022
decreed the suit as prayed for. The Trial Court also specifically
framed an issue as to whether the defendants have proved the oral
sale pleaded by them. It was found that the defendants have not
proved the oral sale from the father of the plaintiffs or their
enjoyment on the basis of such oral sale. The appellants have also
pleaded that the suit itself the barred by limitation. Having regard
to the specific findings on the issue of title and the other evidence,
the Trial Court also held that the suit is not barred by limitation.
The Trial Court specifically found that the plaintiffs have proved
their title in respect of item Nos.1 and 2 and an extent of 3 1/2
cents out of 8 cents in Item No.3. Consequential injunction was
also granted only in respect of Item Nos.1 and 2 and 3 ½ cents out
of 8 cents described as Item No.3. Aggrieved by the judgment and
decree of the Trial Court, the appellants and the other defendants
have filed AS.No.81/2019 on the file of the learned III Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore District at Vridhachalam.
The plaintiffs have also filed Cross Appeal in Cross Appeal
No.81/2019.
SA.No.285/2022
(6) The Lower Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment and decree
of the Trial Court after holding that the plaintiffs have proved their
title and the defendants have failed to prove their oral sale or their
enjoyment over the suit properties. Aggrieved by the concurrent
judgments and decrees of the Courts below, the present Second
Appeal is filed by defendants 4, 5, 10 and 21 in the suit in
OS.No.593/2008.
(7) The appellants have raised the following substantial questions of
law in the Memorandum of Grounds of Second Appeal:-
a) Whether the appellants put up construction
with or without the knowledge of the
respondents/plaintiffs and whether the
plaintiffs acquiesced in the construction
thereby they are stopped from asking for
recovery of possession of the said property
from the appellants / defendants?
b) Whether the appellants are enjoying the
property as per the patta issued by the
Revenue Authority with their peaceful
SA.No.285/2022
possession and enjoyment of the property till
today?
c) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
d) Whether the suit is properly valued and proper
Court fee has been paid or not?
e) Whether the appellants have right to adverse
possession?
f) Whether the appellants had orally purchaed
the property?
g) Whether the suit is maintainable without
seeking delivery of possession of the suit
property?
h) Whether the suit property schedule is correct
or not?
i) Whether any issue of fact or any issue of law
proved by the respondents/plaintiffs?
j) Had not the plaintiffs by their own pleading
lost their right to recover possession from the
plaintiffs by operation of Article 65 of the
Limitation Act, 1963?
(8) The respondents/plaintiffs have filed documents and adduced oral
evidence to prove their title. It is seen that on behalf of the
plaintiffs, the 2nd plaintiff was examined as PW1 and an
SA.No.285/2022
independent witness was examined as PW2. Exs.A1 to A14 were
marked on the side of the plaintiffs. The defendants marked
Exs.B1 to B20 apart from examining two witnesses. From the
documents of title and the subsequent encumbrance created by the
predecessors in title of the plaintiffs, the Courts below have
concurrently resolved the question of title in favour of the
respondents/plaintiffs. Even though it is stated that the appellants
are enjoying all the suit properties by referring to the House Tax
Receipts, the Courts below were unable to find any relevance to the
House Tax receipts. The revenue documents filed by the appellants
were also considered by the Courts below and found that the
documents will not prove the title or enjoyment of the appellant
over the suit property. There is no permanent structure in the suit
property as per the description of the property in the plaint.
Though it is stated that some temporary superstructure was erected
by the appellants, the appellants have not proved their possession.
In the course of evidence, DW2 admitted that tthey have not
produced any document or revenue record to prove their enjoyment.
SA.No.285/2022
When appellants pleaded oral sale from the father of respondents,
DW2 deposed that he did not know when the oral sale was
obtained and stated further that the oral sale was from the legal
heirs of plaintiffs' grandfather.
(9) It is well settled that possession follows title in respect of vacant
land. The revenue documents filed by the respondents would
clearly establish their possession over the suit properties. Though
the appellants have filed House Tax Receipts, the learned counsel
for the appellants is unable to correlate documents to prove the
appellants' possession. In the light of the specific findings of the
Courts below on proper appreciation of the documents filed by the
appellants before the Court below, this Court is unable to find force
in the arguments. When the question of title is decided in favour of
the plaintiffs/respondents based on appreciation of evidence by the
Courts below, this Court is unable to find any substance in any of
the substantial questions of law raised by the appellants in this
Second Appeal.
(10) The Lower Appellate Court has applied its mind and rendered
SA.No.285/2022
findings against the appellants on all issues. This is not a case
where the Courts below have failed to consider any of the
documents filed by the defendants or the findings of the Courts
below are perverse.
(11) This Court, sitting in the Second Appeal cannot re-appreciate the
evidence and reverse the judgments and decrees of the Courts
below merely because a different view is also possible.
(12) Since the substantial questions of law have no substance
particularly having regard to the findings rendered by the Courts
below, this Court is unable to entertain the Second Appeal.
(13) In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed as devoid of merits.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
05.04.2022
AP
Internet : Yes
To
1.The III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Vridhachalam .
2.The I Additional District Munsif
Cuddalore at Vridhachalam.
SA.No.285/2022
3.The Section Officer
VR Section, High Court
Chennai.
S.S.SUNDAR, J.,
AP
SA.No.285/2022
SA.No.285/2022
05.04.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11
