Madras High Court
Pooranam (Died) vs Malik on 30 March, 2023
S.A.(MD).No.295 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 30.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
S.A.(MD).No.295 of 2021
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.4015 of 2021
1.Pooranam (Died)
2.Ramamoorthi
3.Neelamegam
4.Nagajothi ... Appellants/Appellants/Plaintiffs
(Appellants 3 and 4 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased 1 st appellant
vide Court order dated 23.12.2021 made in C.M.P.(MD).Nos.10805, 10807 and
10809 of 2021 in S.A.(MD).No.295 of 2021)
Vs.
Malik ...Respondent/Respondent/Defendant
Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC to set aside the
Judgment and Decree dated 27.11.2020 passed in A.S.No.5 of 2017 on the file
of the Honourable Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram confirming the
Judgment and Decree dated 22.12.2016 passed in O.S.No.124 of 2010 on the
file of the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court,
Rameswaram.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
S.A.(MD).No.295 of 2021
For Appellants : Mr.P.Mani Anandh
For Respondent : Mr.Vashik Ali
for Mr.D.Nallathambi
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent findings of
the Courts below. The plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.124 of 2010 on the file of
the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Rameswaram are the
appellants herein. During the pendency of the Second Appeal, the first
appellant died and the third and fourth appellants were brought on record as her
legal representatives.
2. The suit was filed for declaration and for permanent injunction in
respect of the suit schedule property. The said suit was dismissed by the Trial
Court, namely, the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court,
Rameswaram by its judgment and decree dated 22.12.2016. Aggrieved by the
same, the plaintiffs in the suit filed a first appeal before the Lower Appellate
Court, namely, the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram in A.S.No.5 of 2017. The
Lower Appellate Court also confirmed the findings of the Trial Court by
dismissing the first appeal. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts
below, this Second Appeal has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).No.295 of 2021
3. In the forthcoming paragraphs, the parties are described as per their
litigative status in the suit. The plaintiffs trace their title over the suit schedule
property by virtue of a patta issued in favour of Karuppiah by the revenue
authorities on 27.11.1992. According to the plaintiffs, the suit schedule
property was settled in their favour and their other son, namely, the third
appellant herein by a registered inam settlement deed dated 22.10.1999.
According to the plaintiffs, ever since the execution of the inam settlement deed
dated 22.10.1999, they are in possession of the suit schedule property as the
absolute owners. According to them, based on an application submitted by the
defendant, the Revenue Divisional Officer, Ramanathapuram during the year
2006, without conducting proper enquiry, erroneously ordered for issuance of
patta in the name of the defendant based on the judgment and decree passed in
O.S.No.233 of 1999 on the file of the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram. The
plaintiffs claim that they are not the parties to the said suit and that they had
preferred appeal before the District Revenue Officer and that by taking
advantage of the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the defendant is
attempting to evict the plaintiffs unlawfully from the suit schedule property. In
such circumstances, the suit was filed for declaration and for permanent
injunction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).No.295 of 2021
4. However, as seen from the written statement filed by the defendant, he
categorically contended that the suit schedule property absolutely belongs to
him. According to the defendant, as per the judgment and decree passed by the
Sub Court, Ramanathapuram in O.S.No.223 of 1999, his father Abdul Rahuman
is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property. The defendant has
contended that the suit schedule property is part of a larger area measuring a
total extent of 7.45.5 hectares comprised in Survey No.10/2 originally which
belonged to his father Abdul Rahman ancestrally. According to him, since his
father was living abroad, the first plaintiff's husband Karuppiah was appointed
to manage Abdul Rahuman's property comprised in Survey No.10/2 and he has
misused his authority by including his name in the patta and therefore,
according to the defendant, rightly the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ramanathapuram on 05.05.2008 has ordered for issuance of patta for the suit
schedule property in the name of the defendant after the death of his father,
Abdul Rahuman.
5. The Trial Court after framing issues based on the pleadings of the
respective parties and after giving due consideration to the oral and
documentary evidence available on record has dismissed the suit. Before the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).No.295 of 2021
Trial Court, the plaintiffs filed eight documents, which were marked as exhibits
A1 to A8 and the first plaintiff was examined as a witness (P.W.1). On the side
of the defendant, 16 documents were filed, which were marked as exhibits B1
to B16 and two witnesses were examined on his side, namely, the defendant
himself as D.W.1 and one Sulaiman as D.W.2. The Advocate Commissioner
was also appointed during the pendency of the suit and the reports of the
Advocate Commissioner were marked as Court exhibits, namely, Ex.C1 and
Ex.C2.
6. The Trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit on the ground that since
the patta through which the plaintiffs claim title over the suit schedule property
has been cancelled as per the order of the Revenue Divisional Officer, the
plaintiffs are not entitled for the relief of declaration. Even in the oral evidence
of the plaintiffs' witness (P.W.1), she admits that patta has been cancelled and it
has been re-issued in the name of the defendant pursuant to an application filed
by the defendant before the Revenue Divisional Officer. Even though in the
plaint, the plaintiffs have pleaded that an appeal was filed against the order of
the Revenue Divisional Officer cancelling the patta, no documentary evidence
has been produced as to what transpired in the appellate proceedings of the
plaintiffs. On the other hand, the defendant has traced his title from 1912
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).No.295 of 2021
onwards, as seen from Ex.B10, the certified copy of the sale deed dated
21.08.1912 executed in favour of Syed Kathi Rawuthar. Subsequent to the said
document, the defendant has traced his title by virtue of other documents,
which include revenue records, which have been marked as exhibits on the side
of the defendant. The defendant has also filed the patta standing in his name
for the suit schedule property, which has been marked as Ex.B9, which was
issued pursuant to the patta transfer order passed by the Revenue Divisional
Officer, Ex.B13. Therefore, the Trial Court has rightly held that the plaintiffs
have not proved their title and therefore, they are not entitled for the relief of
declaration and permanent injunction. This Court does not find any infirmity in
the findings of the Trial Court.
7. The Lower Appellate Court, namely, the Sub Court, Ramanathapuram
in its judgment and decree dated 27.11.2020 passed in A.S.No.5 of 2017 has
also rightly confirmed the findings of the Trial Court by dismissing the first
appeal filed by the plaintiffs.
8. The issues raised in this Second Appeal by the appellants in the
grounds of appeal have all been rightly considered by the Courts below only in
accordance with law and only based upon the oral and documentary evidence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.(MD).No.295 of 2021
placed on record by both the parties. There are no substantial questions of law
involved in this Second Appeal and the substantial questions of law raised in
the grounds of the Second Appeal by the appellants are only factual issues
which have been correctly considered by the Courts below. In the result, there
is no merit in this Second Appeal.
9. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stands closed.
30.03.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
Lm
To
1.The Sub Court,
Ramanathapuram.
2.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court,
Rameswaram.
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.295 of 2021
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
Lm
S.A.(MD).No.295 of 2021
30.03.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
