Madras High Court
Mugesh vs Rayappan on 29 March, 2023
S.A.(MD).No.566 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 29.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
S.A.(MD).No.566 of 2022
1.Mugesh
2.Meganathan ... Appellants/Appellants/Plaintiffs
Vs.
1.Rayappan
2.Amalajothi
3.Samsan
4.Prince
5.Sakthivel
Ramar (died)
6.Azhagarsamy
7.Suruli ...Respondents/Respondents/Defendants
Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC to set aside the
Judgment and decree passed in A.S. No.12/2013 dated 18.12.2013 on the file of
the learned Subordinate judge, Uthamapalayam confirming the judgment and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/6
S.A.(MD).No.566 of 2022
decree passed by the learned District Munsif, Uthamapalayam in
O.S.No.17/2010 dated 22.11.2012 and allow the above Second Appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.C.Jeganathan
For R-1 to R-4 : Mr.P.Santhosh Kumar
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent findings of
the Courts below. The plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.17 of 2010 on the file of
the District Munsif Court, Uthamapalayam are the appellants herein. The suit
was filed for declaration to declare the plaintiffs as the absolute owners of the
suit schedule property and for a consequential recovery of possession from the
respondents/defendants.
2. A written statement was also filed by the respondents/defendants
denying the title of the appellants/plaintiffs. They claimed ownership of the
suit schedule property and they also claimed that they are in possession of the
same.
3. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiffs filed seven documents, which
were marked as exhibits A1 to A7. But none of the documents filed by the
plaintiffs relate to the suit schedule property. The plaintiffs claim ownership of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).No.566 of 2022
the eastern side of the suit schedule property, which is the subject matter of
dispute by virtue of an oral sale deed which has been rejected by the Trial Court
while dismissing the suit as any conveyance in favour of the plaintiffs will have
to be only by way of a registered document. On the other hand, the
respondents/defendants have filed documents which have been marked as
exhibits B1 to B14, which all pertain to the property which is the subject matter
of dispute in the suit. The documents include EB receipts, house tax receipts
and patta (Ex.B8) standing in the name of the first defendant in respect of
Survey No.556/1, which is the subject matter of the dispute.
3. The suit schedule property is on the east of the property under Ex.A1.
Even though the plaintiffs have subsequently relied upon the Commissioner's
report and plan (Ex.C1 and Ex.C2), the Trial Court has rightly rejected the
plaintiffs' contention on the ground that they have not chosen to seek for
amendment of the plaint and have not produced any documentary evidence in
respect of their ownership over the suit schedule property. The Trial Court,
after observing that the documents produced by the defendants in respect of the
suit schedule property are standing in the name of the first defendant, has
rightly dismissed the suit. Accordingly, since the plaintiffs have not proved
their title over the suit schedule property, the Trial Court has given a finding
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).No.566 of 2022
that the plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for in
the plaint and consequently, the relief of recovery of possession also cannot be
granted. This Court does not find any infirmity in the findings of the Trial
Court.
4. The Lower Appellate Court, namely, the Sub Court, Uthamapalayam
by its judgment and decree dated 18.12.2013 in A.S.No.12 of 2013 has also
rightly confirmed the findings of the Trial Court by dismissing the first appeal
filed by the plaintiffs.
5. The substantial questions of law raised by the appellants in the
grounds of this Second Appeal are all factual issues, which have been correctly
considered by the Courts below against the plaintiffs. There are no debatable
issues of fact or law involved, which calls for interference by this Court under
Section 100 of CPC. In the result, there is no merit in this Second Appeal.
Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
29.03.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Lm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).No.566 of 2022
To
1.The Sub Court,
Uthamapalayam.
2.The District Munsif Court,
Uthamapalayam.
3.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).No.566 of 2022
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
Lm
S.A.(MD).No.566 of 2022
29.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
