Madras High Court
Unnamalai vs Siva Palanivel on 3 February, 2022
S.A.No.815 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.02.2022
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.CHANDRASEKHARAN
S.A.No.815 of 2021
and
C.M.P.No.15711 of 2021
Palaniammal (Deceased)
Palaniyayi (Deceased)
1. Unnamalai
2. Sivagami
3. Easwari
4. R.Mathappan
5. R.Alamelu …Appellants
[Çause title accepted vide order dated
08.04.2021 made in C.M.P.No.6620 of 2021 in
S.A.SR.No.9214 of 2020]
Vs.
1. Siva Palanivel
2. Siva Perumal ...Respondents
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree of the Subordinate Judge,
Bavani, made in A.S.No.4 of 2014 dated 17.03.2015 confirming the judgment
and decree of the Principal District Munsif, Bavani made in O.S.No.150 of
2011 dated 13.12.2012.
1/14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.815 of 2021
For Appellants : Mr.C.Chokkalingam
For Respondents : Mr.M.Rajeev Gandhi
For R1 & R2.
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment of Subordinate
Judge, Bavani in A.S.No.4 of 2014, confirming the judgment of the Principal
District Munsif, Bavani in O.S.No.150 of 2011.
2. The appellants/plaintiffs filed the suit claiming the relief of
declaration that the suit properties absolutely belong to them and for
permenant injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with their
possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.
3. Palaniammal and her four daughters, filed the aforesaid suit. After
disposal of the appeal, it appears that Palaniyammal and her daughter
Palaniyayee died. The legal representatives of Palaniyayee (deceased) were
impleaded as appellants 4 & 5 in this Second Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.815 of 2021
4. The case of the appellants is that the suit properties were assigned to
Annamalai under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion
into Ryotwari) Act, 1963. He was granted patta in respect of the suit
properties. Annamalai died 25 years back and thereafter, his legal heirs were
enjoying the suit properties. The respondents demanded the appellants to sell
the suit properties for a meagre price. When the appellants refused their
demands, the respondents tried to interfere with the appellants' possession
and enjoyment of the suit properties. Hence, a legal notice dated 03.11.2010
was issued to the respondents in this regard. The first respondent received the
notice on 10.11.2010 and second respondent received the notice on
08.11.2010. They have not sent any reply. After knowing that the description
of the properties was incorrectly given in the notice dated 03.11.2010,
rejoinder notice dated 23.06.2011 was issued and that was received by the
respondents on 30.03.2011. They have sent a reply dated 18.04.2011 for the
rejoinder notice. In such circumstances, the suit was filed for the aforesaid
reliefs.
5. The case of the respondents from the written statement and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.815 of 2021
additional written statement is that they have denied that the suit properties
were assigned to Annamalai under the Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition
and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963. The claim of the appellants that
they are enjoying the suit properties, is also denied. The respondents and
certain other third parties are also entitled to the suit properties. It is a case
where Annamalai's name is found in the joint patta and hence, the suit cannot
be filed for the relief of declaration and for injunction. Sriranga Gounder
gifted the house sites measuring 40 cents to Annamalai with the specific
boundaries and except that property, Annamalai has no right in any other
properties. In Item No.6 of the suit properties, the first respondent constructed
a house. The appellants have already filed a suit in O.S.No.389 of 1984,
seeking the relief of declaration of title and for permanent injunction, in
respect of the suit properties against one Sriranga Goundar, father of the first
respondent and one Ramasamy Goundar. The said suit was dismissed for
default on 21.02.1989. Annamalai's sister Palaniyayee also filed a suit in
O.S.No.788 of 1991 against these appellants Sriranga Goundar and the legal
heirs of Ramasamy Goundar seeking the relief of partition in respect of this
suit property. The said suit was also dismissed for default on 28.01.1992.
Appellants have no right in the suit properties and therefore, both the suits
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.815 of 2021
were dismissed for default. It is further submitted that the properties situated
in RS.Nos.55/5, 55/9, 61/1 were given to Annamalai's wife as gift by Sriranga
Goundar. There are no merits in this case and therefore, the suit has to be
dismissed.
6. The fourth plaintiff / second appellant has filed reply statement,
refuting the allegations with regard to the suit filed in O.S.No.389 of 1984
and O.S.No.788 of 1991.
7. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings, the trial Court framed the
following issues:-
“(i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for
the relief of declaration as prayed for?
(ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for
the relief of permanent injunction as prayed
for?
(iii) To what other reliefs the plaintiffs are
entitled to?”
8. In the trial Court, PW1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A13 were
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.815 of 2021
marked on the side of the appellants/plaintiffs. DW1 was examined and
Exs.B1 to B21 were marked on the side of the respondents/defendants.
9. The trial Court, on going through the oral and documentary evidence
found that the documents filed by the appellants, especially, in support of
their claim of the absolute title in the suit properties, would reflect that the
pattas are not granted in the individual name of Annamalai, but the pattas
were given in joint names viz., Annamalai, defendants and other third parties.
The appellants have failed to establish their independent title in respect of the
suit properties and dismissed the suit.
10. In the appeal filed by the appellants in A.S.No.4 of 2014, the
learned First Appellate Judge, on appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence, found that the appellants failed to establish independent title over
the suit properties. Since, the suit properties are in joint names viz.,
appellants, Annamalai and other persons, the First Appellate Court dismissed
the appeal confirming the judgment of the trial Court.
11. Challenging the said Judgment of the First Appellate Court, this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.815 of 2021
Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiffs.
12. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
documents produced by the appellants prove that they are in possession and
enjoyment of the suit properties and the patta was granted under Tamil Nadu
Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963. The First
Appellate Court observed that the appellants produced the patta granted
under Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari)
Act, 1963. The orders were passed as per enquiry notice sent, which were
marked as Exs.A10 to A12 & A13. It is further submitted that both the Courts
below have not appreciated the oral and documentary evidence properly and
dismissed the suit. Praying to set aside the judgments of the Courts below, the
appellants have come up with this Second Appeal.
13. In response, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that
the appellants have produced only joint pattas and notice issued under
Tamil Nadu Minor Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act,
1963, which would not reflect their exclusive title over the suit property.
Appellants cannot claim any independent title over the suit properties. It is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.815 of 2021
further submitted that both the Courts have rightly considered the evidence
and dismissed the suit and he prayed for dismissal of the Second Appeal.
14. Considered the rival submissions and also perused the records. It is
clear from the evidence produced that the joint pattas were issued in respect of
the suit properties in the names of Annamalai, respondents and other persons.
Admittedly, the appellants have not produced any evidence to show that they
are entitled for the properties as described in the schedule of the properties
with four boundaries. Absolutely, there are no documents produced to show
that the appellants are entitled to the properties as defined with four
boundaries.
15. Item No.1 of the suit properties is in Survey No.61/1. Appellant
produced Exs.A4 to A13 to claim right in respect of item No.1 of the suit
properties. Ex.A4 shows that patta was granted in respect of RS.No.61/1 for
13 persons including Annamalai and names of respondents also appeared in
this patta. Ex.A13 notice was issued to 8 persons including Annamalai.
16. Item No.2 is in RS.No.60/1. Appellants produced Ex.A8 patta to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.815 of 2021
show their independent right over this property. Ex.A8 does not reflect the
name of Annamalai. It reflects only the name of the respondents.
17. Item No.3 is in RS.No.55/9. Appellants produced Ex.A3 patta to
prove the title in respect of this property. This document shows the name of
Annamalai, respondents and two other persons. Appellants claim Southern
30 cents from the larger extent of 0.28.5 hectares.
18. For Item No.4, boundaries are given with regard to this property.
Ex.A9 patta relates to item No.4 of the suit properties. It reflects the name of
Annamalai, respondents and in total 8 persons. Ex.A10 notice under the
Tamil Nadu Minor Inam (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963
was given to Annamalai and 10 other persons.
19. Ex.A1 patta relates to item No.5 of the suit properties. It shows that
it bears the names of the Annamalai, respondents and other four persons.
Ex.A11- Tamil Nadu Inam Abolition notice connected with this property was
issued in respect of four persons including Annamalai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.815 of 2021
20. Ex.A2 patta relates to item No.6 of the suit property in S.No.46/11.
Ex.A12 is the notice under Tamil Nadu Minor Inam (Abolition and
Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963. Ex.A2 shows the names of Annamalai,
respondents and two other persons, totally five persons. Ex.A12 was issued to
Annamalai and three other persons.
21. The documents produced before the Court clearly show that the
patta was issued not only to Annamalai, but also to the respondents and third
parties. Notice was also issued to these persons. Appellants have not
produced any single piece of evidence to show that they have absolute and
independent right over the suit properties. Hence, the relief of declaration of
title and consequential reliefs cannot be granted on the basis of the joint patta
produced by them.
22. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court is of the considered
view that both the Courts below have rightly found that appellants failed to
prove their claim of absolute title and right over the suit properties and the
reliefs for declaration and injunction, was rightly rejected.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.815 of 2021
23. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgments of the
Courts below and no substantial question of law arises for consideration.
24. In the result, this Court confirms the judgment of the Subordinate
Judge in A.S.No.4 of 2014, confirming the judgment of the Principal District
Munsif, Bavani in O.S.No.150 of 2011 and this Second Appeal shall stand
dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
25. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants
may be given liberty to file a fresh suit for partition. Appellants have certain
right in the suit properties and that is the reason why joint patta was given in
the name of Annamalai also. Therefore, the appellants are given liberty to
workout their legal remedy in the manner known to law.
03.02.2022
kmm
Index:Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.815 of 2021
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking Order: Yes/No
Note: Issue order copy on 29.03.2022
To
1. The Principal District Munsif, Bavani
2. The Subordinate Judge, Bavani
3. The Section Officer,
VR Section,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.815 of 2021
G.CHANDRASEKHARAN.J,
kmm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.815 of 2021
S.A.No.815 of 2021
03.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
