Madras High Court
G.Ravindran vs D.Jayamala on 25 April, 2022
SA NO.642 OF 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 25 / 04 / 2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
SA NO.642 OF 2017
AND CMP NO.15865 OF 2017
G.Ravindran ... Appellant
VS.
D.Jayamala ... Respondent
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code, 1908, against the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2017 made in
AS No.120 of 2013, on the file of the I Additional Judge, City Civil
Court, Chennai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2012,
made in OS No.2031 of 2004, on the file of the XVII Assistant Judge,
City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.Srinath Sridevan
For Respondent : Mr.D.Sreenivasan
for M/s.Karthik Raja
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA NO.642 OF 2017
JUDGMENT
Aggrieved over the reversal of the judgment and decree of
the Trial Court, by the First Appellate Court, the defendant has preferred
the above Second Appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are
called as per their litigative status before the Trial Court.
2.According to the plaintiff, she purchased the suit property
on 30.04.1998 by virtue of a registered Sale Deed Document
No.1069/1998, registered at the Office of the Sub Registrar, Royapuram
from her vendors namely one (1) D.Ragavalu (2) D.Ragavendra and (3)
D.Ragaraju. The suit schedule property originally belonged to one
Pullamma, who purchased the same from one Pappaiah, vide Sale Deed
dated 07.12.1950. After the purchase of the suit property, the said
Pullamma developed the property and constructed the present house. She
died intestate on 19.11.1972 without any issues, leaving behind the
above three persons viz., (1) D.Ragavalu (2) D.Ragavendra and (3)
D.Ragaraju as her legal heirs, who are none other than her younger
sister's sons and also her husbands second wife's sons. From 1950 till the
year 1998, the property was under possession and enjoyment of the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA NO.642 OF 2017
Pullamma and her legal heirs. She paid the house tax from 1957 till 1998
to the Corporation of Chennai and property tax also stands in her name
since 1950. After purchase from the legal heirs, the Corporation of
Chennai transferred the property tax in favour of the plaintiff and she has
been paying property tax and water tax. The defendant even before the
purchase was tenant in respect of the suit property. She approached the
defendant to vacate the premises, but he failed to do so. Hence, she filed
an eviction petition in RCOP No.2385/1999 on the file of XVI Small
Causes Court, Chennai. Since there was a denial of landlord and tenant
relationship, it was dismissed with a direction to approach the
appropriate Forum.
3.In the meanwhile, the defendant filed O.S.No.2185 of
1998 and obtained an exparte decree for permanent injunction not to
interfere with his peaceful possession. It is relevant to state that
O.S.No.2185 of 1998 was filed against the plaintiff's vendor and not
against the plaintiff and therefore, the decree is not binding on her. The
defendant, without having any legal right squatting the property and as
such, he shall be considered as trespasser and liable to be evicted.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA NO.642 OF 2017
4.The defendant filed a written statement denying the
averments made in the plaint. According to him, he has been in
possession and enjoyment of the suit property as absolute owner for
many decades and prescribed title over the suit property by adverse
possession also. The defendant neither a tenant under the plaintiff nor
under Pullamma or under the vendors of the plaintiff and never paid
rentals to them. The claim of title has already been negatived in RCOP
No.2385/1999 and the order has become final and hence, the present Suit
is hit by resjudicata. Further, the vendors of the plaintiff are not owners
of the suit property and that they are not related to Pullamma or Ramaiah
and they have no right to convey the title. The decree passed in
O.S.No.2185 of 1998 filed against the vendors of the plaintiff will bind
the plaintiff also and the Sale Deed dated 30.04.1998 is hit by lis
pendens as the Suit was filed as early as on 30.03.1998 prior to the Sale
Deed dated 30.04.1998.
5.Even as per the Sale Deed dated 30.04.1998, the land
belongs to the Government and the plaintiff claims to have purchased
only the superstructure and therefore, the plaintiff cannot pray for a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA NO.642 OF 2017
decree of possession for the site owned by the Government. The
defendant is still continuing in possession. Pursuant to the denial of title,
the plaintiff amended the prayer from one of declaration of title into
delivery of vacant possession.
6.The Trial Court after framing appropriate issues dismissed
the Suit holding that the plaintiff has not proved her title. On appeal, the
First Appellate Court reversed the finding and decreed the Suit holding
that the plaintiff has better title than the defendant and she is entitled to
the relief sought for by her. Aggrieved over the same, the defendant has
preferred the above Second Appeal.
7.The Second Appeal was admitted on 09.03.2020 on the
following substantial questions of law:-
"1.Whether the lower appellate Court was right in
concluding that the predecessor in interest of the plaintiff
would have better title on Ex.A37 which is admittedly
an unregistered instrument of sale of immovable property
of a value of about Rs.100/-?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA NO.642 OF 2017
2.Whether the lower appellate Court was right in
concluding that the vendors of the plaintiffs are the legal
heirs of the deceased Ramaiah and Pullammal in the
absence of any evidence of marriage between two ?
3.Whether the lower appellate Court was right in
relying upon Ex.A40 in proof of legal heirship of the
vendors of the plaintiff?"
8.The learned counsel for the appellant would vehemently
contend that from the beginning, the defendant has never admitted the
title of the plaintiff. He is holding the property in his independent
capacity and he is residing there for years together which is amply
proved by Exs.B7, B9 and B10. The property originally belonged to his
grandfather Pappiah and that the said Pullamma was inducted as tenant in
his property. Later, she claimed title over the same. But for decades, he is
residing in the very same property as independent owner.
9.The learned counsel for the appellant would rely on a
judgment of this Court in N.DHANALAKSHMI VS. THE DISTRICT
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA NO.642 OF 2017
REVENUE OFFICER, SALEM AND OTHERS [2002 (2) CTC 228]
for the proposition that the legal heir certificates issued by the Revenue
Officials are not based on any legal provision. The Competent Civil
Court is bound to decide the disputes regarding determination of legal
heirs and the legal heir certificates issued by the Revenue Officials will
not confer any right or title over the property.
10.Therefore, reliance placed by the First Appellate Court
upon Ex.A40, which is the Proper Person Certificate issued by Tahsildar,
Venkatagiri, as proof of legal heirship is not sustainable. Besides this, the
Marriage between the mother of the vendors Rosamma and Ramaiah, the
husband of Pullamma was not even proved. In the absence of proof of
marriage, the legal heirship certificate cannot be relied on and the
vendors of the plaintiff cannot be construed as legal heirs of Pullamma
and thereby the owners of the property. Further, the application of
Section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act, is not applicable to the case on
hand as none of the relatives of Pullamma were examined.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA NO.642 OF 2017
11.The learned counsel for the respondent would contend
that though Ex.A37 is an unregistered Sale Deed, the said Pullamma had
been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property. Vide
Ex.A3, the property tax was assessed in the name of Pullamma and she
had been paying the property tax from the year 1957 vide Exs.A3, A6,
A7 to A12. Therefore, the continuous possession of the property tax in
favour of Pullamma would equivocally prove that Pullamma is the
owner. The defendant also admit that she is the owner, but would
contend that the vendors of the plaintiff are not the legal heirs. Exs.A38
and A39 are death certificates of Ramaiah and Pullamma and Ex.A40 is
the Proper Person Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Venkatagiri. The
vendors of the plaintiff, after having proved that they are the only
certifying legal heirs of Pullamma, have sold the property by virtue of
Sale Deed dated 30.04.1998 and property tax assessment was transferred
in favour of the plaintiff as early as on 22.05.1998 vide Ex.A4 and
property tax demand card was issued on 02.09.1991 vide Exs.A5 and A6.
Ex.A7 is the Chennai Metro-water Supply and Sewerage Board card and
the plaintiff is continuing to pay the property tax.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA NO.642 OF 2017
12.When the assessment over the property continues to be in
the name of the plaintiff, without any challenge by the defendant, she
cannot claim title as independent owner. Further, they have taken a
contradictory plea of adverse possession against the plaintiff, without any
specific details as to when the possession has become adverse, as to
when they were established their adverse possession. No materials were
placed in this aspect. Further, the claim of the plaintiff that the property
was originally assigned in favour of his grandfather and he is continued
to be in possession as owner is not corroborated by any material
evidence. On the other hand, she has proved by documents that she is the
owner of the property and therefore, would pray that the appellant shall
be treated as trespasser and shall be directed to deliver vacant possession.
13.In this background, the questions of law have to be
analysed. The admitted fact remains that from 1950 onwards, the said
Pullamma is residing in the property claiming ownership. From the
evidence, it is noted that Rosamma sister of Pullamma claims the very
same rights as legal heirs of Pullamma after her demise. The property tax
demand card, tax receipts, water tax receipts from 1957 to 1998 goes to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA NO.642 OF 2017
prove that Pullamma continued to be in possession after putting up
construction over the property. This factum is not disputed by the
defendant herein. Though the defendant claims that the property was
originally assigned in favour of the grandfather Pappiah under Adi-
Dravidar Welfare Scheme, he has not produced even a scrap of materials
to prove the same. The defendant has not adduced any evidence to
substantiate his claim to title. On the other hand, the plaintiff has
produced Ex.A2, the registered sale deed dated 30.04.1998 and the
subsequent transfer of ownership in the assessment of tax. In that event,
the finding of the First Appellate Court that the plaintiff has proved title
is supported by material evidence. It is relevant to note that Exs.B1 and
B2 certified copies of the plaint as well as the judgment and decree
passed in O.S.No.2185 of 1998 would prove that the defendant has filed
the Suit restraining the vendors of the plaintiff, from evicting them by
undue process of law, which means, the title of the vendors of the
plaintiff was admitted by the defendant. He cannot turn around and state
that the vendors of the plaintiff are not the owners of the property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA NO.642 OF 2017
14.Taking the entire materials placed before this Court, it is
well established that the plaintiff has a better title than the defendant who
could not produce even a scrap of evidence to establish the title. Once it
is admitted that he is a tenant and he shall not be evicted by undue
process of law, he cannot turn around and claim title by possession. Once
a tenant is always a tenant. Therefore, the first question of law is
answered against the appellant.
15.In so far as the second question of law is concerned, the
plaintiff may not be in a position to prove the marriage took place
between Ramaiah and Pullamma or Ramaiah and Rosamma. Admittedly,
the defendant did not dispute the relationship of Ramaiah and Pullamma
as husband and wife. There is no dispute with regard to the relationship
of Rosamma and Pullamma as well as Rosamma and Ramaiah. What is
agitated is that the Proper Person Certificate produced by the plaintiff's
vendor vide Ex.A40 cannot be relied on, as it will not confer any legal
right or title over the property. It is true to state that the Revenue
Officials are not the authorities to declare the legal heirship. They can
only record the legal heirs after enquiry. But, it shall not disputed by any
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA NO.642 OF 2017
other legal heir. The vendors of the plaintiff are not the legal heirs of
Pullamma and Ramaiah. In the absence of any rival claim, the defendant
cannot take advantage of the same. Therefore, it shall be presumed that
the vendors of the plaintiff are the legal heirs as long as the Sale Deed
executed by them remains in tact and until it is disproved that they are
not the legal heirs by adducing legal evidence. Therefore, it is well
established that the plaintiff has proved to have a better title which is
borne out by documentary evidence than the oral claim made by the
defendant without any materials.
16.In such circumstances, I do not find any discrepancy in
the findings of the First Appellate Court to interfere with the same. The
Second Appeal merits no consideration and accordingly, stands
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
25 / 04 / 2022
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
TK
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA NO.642 OF 2017
To
1.The I Additional Judge
City Civil Court
Chennai.
2.The XVII Assistant Judge
City Civil Court
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA NO.642 OF 2017
M.GOVINDARAJ, J.
TK
SA NO.642 OF 2017
25 / 04 / 2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
