Madras High Court
R. Rajendran vs Palanisamy on 29 March, 2022
S.A.No. 1017 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 29.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
S.A.No. 1017 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
R. Rajendran ... Appellant
Vs
Karuppa Gounder (Died)
Palanisamy ... Respondent
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., to set aside
the Judgment and Decree dated 17.04.2013 in A.S.No.23 of 2012 on the
file of the Subordinate Court, Sathyamangalam and confirming the
Judgment and Decree dated 15.10.2012 in O.S.No.148 of 2008 on the file
of the District Munsif Court, Sathyamangalam.
For Appellant : Mr.I.C.Vasudevan
For Respondent : Mr.N.Manokaran
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
S.A.No. 1017 of 2013
JUDGMENT
The defendant is the appellant in this second appeal.
2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit seeking for the relief of
declaration to declare the registered settlement deed dated 20.06.2005 as
null and void and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant
from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit
property.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that the Government had assigned
certain lands to the Ex-Servicemen Association and the Association
formed a layout. Approval was also granted by the Town and Country
Planning Authority. The suit property is one of the site in the said
layout.
4. The original plaintiff namely Karuppa Gounder was an
Ex-Serviceman and he was also the member of the Association. He
purchased the suit property from the Association through a registered
sale deed dated 01.01.1981, marked as Ex.A3 (B4). Thereafter, he was
in possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No. 1017 of 2013
5. The further case of the plaintiff is that the defendant obtained a
registered settlement deed dated 20.06.2005, marked as Ex.B5, from his
father as if his father is the owner of the suit property. Taking advantage
of this document, the defendant was attempting to interfere with the
possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Hence, the suit came to
be filed by Karuppa Gounder seeking for the relief of permanent
injunction. During the pendency of the suit, he died on 27.12.2008 and
he had executed a registered Will and bequeathed the property in favour
of the second plaintiff. Hence, as a legatee, the second plaintiff
succeeded to the property and he was substituted in the place of the
original plaintiff.
6. The defendant filed a written statement and took a stand that
Karuppa Gounder was the brother of his father. He was taken care by the
defendant's father and he died leaving behind the defendant's father as
Class II legal heir. Thereby, the father of the defendant became the
absolute owner of the property. He executed a settlement deed in favour
of the defendant and thereby the defendant became the owner of the
property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No. 1017 of 2013
7. The defendant also filed an additional written statement and
took a stand that Karuppa Gounder was the co-brother of his father. The
defendant also reiterated his right over the property by virtue of the
settlement deed and sought for the dismissal of the suit.
8. Both the Courts below, on considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence, concurrently held in favour of the plaintiff and the suit was
decreed. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has filed the second
appeal.
9. It is an admitted case that Karuppa Gounder is an
Ex-Serviceman and the original sale deed was also executed in his
favour. The defendant attempted to project the case as if the first
plaintiff is not the assignee and there is yet another Karuppa Gounder,
son of Ramana Gounder, who is the owner of the suit property. In order
to ascertain this fact, both the Courts below appreciated the documents
available on record and also Exs.X1 and X2. Both the Courts also took
into consideration the oral evidence and they gave a categoric finding
that the first plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No. 1017 of 2013
10. The first plaintiff executed a Will in favour of the second
plaintiff and this Will was proved through the attesting witness P.W.2.
The second plaintiff is none other than the son-in-law of the first
plaintiff. By virtue of the Will, the second plaintiff succeeded to the
property.
11. The conduct of the defendant in this case makes him
completely unbelievable. The defendant initially claimed that Karuppa
Gounder is the brother of his father Ramasamy. Thereafter, he filed an
additional written statement and claimed that Karuppa Gounder was his
father's co-brother. During the cross examination, the defendant stated
that Karuppa Gounder was his father's cousin brother. This vacillating
stand taken by the defendant throws a lot of doubt on the claim made by
the defendant over the suit property. Both the Courts below also found
that the defendant did not produce any acceptable documents to establish
the relationship between his father and Karuppa Gounder. Ex.B5, which
was relied upon by the defendant was also found to be non-est in the eye
of law, since the defendant failed to prove as to how his father became
the owner of the suit property. The defendant has approached the Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No. 1017 of 2013
with a false and motivated claim and both the Courts below rightly
rejected the claim made by the defendant.
12. In the considered view of this Court, the findings rendered by
both the Courts below does not suffer from any perversity and there is no
ground to interfere with the same. In any event, no substantial question
of law is involved in this second appeal.
13. In the result, this second appeal is dismissed. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
29.03.2022
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
Lpp
To
1.The Subordinate Judge, Sathyamangalam
2.The District Munsif, Sathyamangalam
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No. 1017 of 2013
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
Lpp
S.A.No. 1017 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
29.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
