Madras High Court
P.Navaneetharaj vs S.Ravi on 6 January, 2022
C.S.No.694 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.01.2022
CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
C.S.No.694 of 2012
P.Navaneetharaj ... Plaintiff
Vs.
1.S.Ravi
2.S.Gomathi
3.Anjanapriya
4.Minor Gomatheeswaran
5.Neelavathy
6.The Assistant Commissioner (ULT)
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 024.
7.The Collector
Chennai District
Chennai – 600 001.
8.The District Revenue Officer
Chennai District
Chennai.
9.The Tahsildar
Mylapore – Triplicane Taluk
Mylapore, Chennai – 600 004.
10.The Tamil Nadu Wakf Board
Rep by its Chief Executive Officer
No.1, Jaffer Syrang Street
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/10
C.S.No.694 of 2012
Vallal Seethakadi Nagar
Mannady, Chennai – 600 001. ... Defendants
[Defendants 6 to 9 suo moto impleaded as per order
dated 26.11.2012 passed in A.No.4724 of 2012]
[Defendant 10 suo moto impleaded as per order
dated 17.08.2016 in A.No.2814 of 2013]
Prayer in C.S.No.694 of 2012 : Civil Suit filed under Order VII Rule 1 of
CPC., r/w. Order IV Rule 1, O.S. Rules praying to pass a judgment and
decree :
(a) for a declaration declaring the decree dated 11.3.2010 passed
in C.S.No.185 of 2008 as null and void and not binding on the
plaintiff;
(b) to pass a preliminary decree for partition and separate
possession of plaintiff's half share in the suit property
morefully described in the schedule hereunder;
(c) for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner to divide the
suit property by metes and bounds and for allotment of
plaintiff's undivided half share in the suit property;
(d) for permanent injunction restraining the defendants herein,
their men, agents, servants or any other person claiming
through them from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful
possession, occupation and enjoyment of the suit property by
the plaintiff;
(e) for the costs of this suit; and
(f) for such further or other reliefs as this Court may deem fit and
proper in the circumstances of the case.
Prayer in Counter Claim by defendants 1 to 5 : Written Statement and
Counter Claim filed under Order-V, Rule 1 &2 of the O.S.Rules, r/w. Order
VIII Rule 1 & 60A CPC., praying to dismiss the suit filed by the plaintiff
and allow the counter claim of the defendants 1 to 5, declaring that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/10
C.S.No.694 of 2012
defendants 1 to 5 are the absolute owners of the property vacant land
measuring 90 grounds and 75 sq.ft., comprised in R.S.No.2024
(O.S.Nos.2279, 2275, 2276, 2277, 2252 and 2252, Mylapore Village,
Mylapore Triplicane Taluk, Chennai and morefully described in the
schedule hereunder together with cost.
For Plaintiff : No appearance
For Defendant : Mr.Ravichandran Sundaresan
[D1 to D5]
Dr.S.Suriya,
Additional Government Pleader [D7 to D9]
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has laid the suit for a declaration that the decree dated
11.03.2010 passed in C.S. No. 185 of 2008 is null and void and for a decree
of partition. The first defendant, on his part, not only resisted the suit but
also has preferred a counter-claim for a declaration that defendants 1 to 5
are the absolute owners of the suit property.
2. Pleadings in the suit were completed, issued framed and the matter was
posted before the learned Additional Master III for holding trial. The
plaintiff did not enter the box and the suit came to be dismissed for default
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.694 of 2012
on 20.12.2021. Only the counter-claim is alive for consideration now.
The first defendant, who examined himself as D.W.1 has produced
documents Exs.D1 to D13.
3. The facts may be narrated briefly:
● A certain Ponnapillai @ Perumal and his wife Govindammal had two
sons, namely, the plaintiff herein and one Subramani, who passed
away and his widow is the fifth defendant. They had three children
and they are defendants 1 and 2 and one S. Prabhakaran.
Prabhakaran is dead and his heirs are defendants 3 and 4.
● According to the plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to his
mother Govindamaml, that on her death it devolved equally on the
plaintiff and Subramani, that the suit property had a total extent of
116.13 grounds, that due to certain encroachments, the extent of
property under the enjoyment of the parties was reduced to 90
grounds and 75 sq.ft.,, and that the Assistant Commissioner, Urban
Land Tax held that both the plaintiff and Subramani were joint
owners of the property.
● While so, on 02.02.2007, the first defendant herein took the plaintiff
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.694 of 2012
to the office of the Sub Registrar, Mylapore for executing a sale
agreement pertaining to his share, obtained signatures of the plaintiff,
but managed to have a settlement deed executed in favour of his
father Subramani (brother of the plaintiff).
● On coming to know of this fraud, the plaintiff cancelled the said
document on 06.03.2007. The plaintiff also came to know that in
assertion of the title based on the aforesaid settlement deed,
defendants 1, 2 and Prabhakaran had laid a suit against their father
Subramani in C.S. No. 185 of 2008 for partition of their shares and
that came to be compromised among all the four parties to that suit.
Hence, he came out with a suit for declaration that the decree passed
in C.S.No. 185 of 2008 is null and void and also prays for a decree of
partition.
3. The contention of defendants 1 to 5 is as follows:
● The property does not belong to Govindammal, but to Ponnapillai @
Perumal. On 29.07.1955, Ponnapillai settled the said property in
favour of his son Subramani. While so, Subramani attempted to
dispose of the property and hence, defendants 1 and 2 along with
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.694 of 2012
their brother Prabhakaran, had laid a suit against their father
Subramani in C.S.No.185 of 2008 for partition. That suit was
decreed and each of the party are granted a decree for one-fourth
share each, equalling to 22.5 grounds each.
● So far as the settlement deed dated 02.02.2007 is concerned, it is
fabricated by the plaintiff with an ulterior motive to create title for
the property and that on the thirty third day of executing the same, he
had also cancelled it, just to create a documentary proof as if he had a
share in the property. So far as the proceedings of the Assistant
Commissioner, Urban Land Tax is concerned, those proceedings
cannot affect title and that the proceedings were brought into
existence, thanks to the fraudulent efforts of the plaintiff.
These defendants seek declaration of title over the suit property which is
also reproduced in the schedule of the property in the written statement.
4.1 As already noted, the suit was dismissed for default and to prove the
counter claim, the first defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and has
produced documents Exs.D1 to D13.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.694 of 2012
4.2 Of all the exhibits produced, Exts.D1 to D3 are critical. Ext.D1 is the
copy of the sale deed executed in favour of Ponnapillai @ Perumal
sometime in December 1915; Ext.D2 is the settlement deed dated
29.07.1955, which Ponnapillai had executed in favour of Subramani (one
of the sons of Ponnapillai), under whom these defendants claim their shares
as his heirs. Ext.D3 is the notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of
Urban Land Tax to the said Subramani. Ext.D8 is the copy of the decree in
C.S.No.185 of 2008.
4.3 These documents strongly indicate that not only Subramani had held
title over the property in question, but also has been recognised as such. In
fact, Ext.D2 was executed before the alleged date of settlement deed which
the plaintiff is stated to have executed in favour of Subramani in 2007.
5. All the documents preponderates only the case of the defendants and
necessarily, the counter claim of the defendants 1 to 5 is required to be
decreed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.694 of 2012
6. Accordingly, the counter claim is allowed and the title of the defendants
1 to 5 are declared to the suit property / the property scheduled in the
written statement. No costs.
06.01.2022
ds
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.694 of 2012
APPENDIX
I. Witnesses :
Defendants : Mr.S.Ravi (DW1)
II. Exhibits :
Defendants :
Ex.D1 Dec. 1915 Sale Deed executed by Kalappa Naidu in favour of
Thiru.Ponnapillai @ Perumal
Ex.D2 29.7.1955 Settlement Deed executed by Thiru.Ponnapillai @
Perumal in favour of Mr.P.Subramani
Ex.D3 04.08.2006 Form 4-C Notice issued to Mr.P.Subramani by the
Assistant Commissioner of Urban Land Tax, Chennai.
Ex.D4 21.01.2008 Death Certificate of Thiru.Ponnapillai @ Perumal
Ex.D5 23.01.2008 Death Certificate of Tmt.Govindammal
Ex.D6 19.02.2009 Death Certificate of Thiru.Prabhakaran
Ex.D7 30.3.2009 Legal Heirship Certificate of Thriu.Prabhakaran
Ex.D8 11.03.2010 Judgment and decree in C.S.No.185 of 2008
Ex.D9 16.09.2010 Death Certificate of Thiru.P.Subramani
Ex.D10 06.10.2010 Legal Heirship Certificate of Thiru.P.Subramani
Ex.D11 04.01.2012 Legal notice issued to 10th defendant by the counsel for
defendants 3 to 5
Ex.D12 28.06.2012 Letter from the District Revenue Officer to the
Tahsildar
Ex.D13 21.08.2012 Letter to the fifth defendant by the Public Information
Officer furnishing the PLR extract copies of
RS.No.2024, 2025 of Mylapore Village.
06.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.694 of 2012
N.SESHASAYEE.J.,
ds
C.S.No.694 of 2012
06.01.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
