Madras High Court
Muthammal vs Packiyam (Died) on 6 September, 2022
S.A.(MD) No.153 of 2011
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 06.09.2022
CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
S.A.(MD) No.153 of 2011
1.Muthammal
2.Raman
3.Karmeghakannan
4.N.Leelavathi ... Appellants/Appellants/Defendants
[4th appellant is impleaded vide Court order dated 03.08.2022]
-vs-
Packiyam (died) ...Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff
2.Dhanam
3.Chella Kamatchi ...Respondents
[Respondents 2 to 4 are brought on record as Legal Heirs of the Deceased Sole
Respondent Vide Court order dated 18.11.2016]
Prayer:- Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the
judgment and decree dated 29.09.2010 passed in A.S.No.66 of 2009 on the
file of the Subordinate Court, Sivagangai by confirming the judgment and
decree dated 20.08.2009 passed in O.S.No.103 of 2006 on the file of the
Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Manamadurai.
For Appellants 1, 2 & 4 : Mr.A.R.Sethupathy
Appellant 3 : Died
For R2 to R4 : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai
******
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD) No.153 of 2011
JUDGMENT
The defendants 1 to 3, who have been unsuccessful in defending O.S.No.
103 of 2006 successively before the Courts below are the appellants herein.
This appeal is not admitted yet.
2. The brief facts are:
(a) there existed a property measuring 1462.5 sq.ft comprising S.No.
233/16 and 233/17. This property was purchased by the first
defendant herein Vide Ext.A2, sale deed dated 02.06.1975. On
11.08.1993, Vide Ext.A3, the first defendant has sold this property to
the plaintiff. Earlier, the plaintiff had purchased another plot of land
to the north of the suit property under Ext.A4, dated 02.05.1975 and
had put up a residential building there. The land purchased by the
plaintiff under Ext.A3 lies contiguous to the property purchased
under Ext.A4. When the plaintiff faced some obstruction to his
peaceful possession from the defendants, he laid the suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD) No.153 of 2011
3. The defence was that on 23.12.2004 under Ext.A5, the first defendant had
sold the property to the third defendant and to rectify it, document in Ext.A6
came to be executed on the same day.
4. The dispute went to trial. Both the courts below have held that after
execution of Ext.A3, the first defendant did not have any possessory interest
in the suit property to convey it to the third defendant under Ext.A5 and
proceeded to decree the suit.
5. The learned counsel for the appellants made valiant efforts to convince
this Court that inasmuch as the defendants have claimed title under
independent sale deeds, the plaintiff ought to have filed a suit for
declaration. Impressive though it may appear to the learned counsel, this
Court finds less fascinated about it. It is not in dispute that the first
defendant was the original owner of the property. When once she had
passed her title under Ext.A3 to the plaintiff, nothing is left in her to convey
subsequently to the third defendant under Ext.A5.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD) No.153 of 2011
6. This Court is satisfied with the correctness of the approach and findings
of the Courts below and they did not warrant interference by this Court
under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. This Appeal is dismissed.
No costs.
06.09.2022
Internet:Yes
Index:Yes/No
ta
To
1.The Subordinate Court, Sivagangai.
2.The Additional District Munsif cum
Judicial Magistrate Court,
Manamadurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD) No.153 of 2011
N.SESHASAYEE, J.
ta
S.A.(MD) No.153 of 2011
06.09.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
