Madras High Court
Lilly Saroja vs Selvaraj on 6 August, 2024
S.A(MD)No.458 of 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 12.07.2024
Pronounced on : 06.08.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI
S.A(MD)No.458 of 2017
and
C.M.P(MD)No.9626 of 2017
1.Lilly Saroja
2.Suganthi
3.Shanthi
4.Jayanthi
5.Sankaran ... Appellants/Appellants/Defendants
Vs.
Selvaraj
Through his power agent.
Dhanapal. ... Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff
PRAYER :-
This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code, against the judgment and decree dated 15.02.2016 passed in A.S.No.17
of 2015 on the file of the Sub Court, Kovilpatti, confirming the judgment and
decree dated 13.02.2015 passed in O.S.No.131 of 2012 on the file of the
District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti.
1/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A(MD)No.458 of 2017
For Appellants : Mr.M.P.Senthil
For Respondent : Mr.S.Kumar
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated
15.02.2016 passed in A.S.No.17/2015 on the file of the Sub Court, Kovilpatti,
confirming the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2015 passed in O.S.No.131
of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti.
2. The appellants are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff
in O.S.No.131 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti.
The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the plaintiff is the
absolute owner of the suit property and consequent permanent injunction
against the defendants.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiff and
defendants as arrayed in O.S.No.131 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif
Court, Kovilpatti.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. Case of the plaintiff:
The property in a larger extent of 1.52 acres in S.No.177/5 of
Manthithoppu village originally belonged to one Ponnammal. Patta No.394
was issued in her name even in 1960. Prior to that, the old adangal number
is 750 for the said property. Out of 1.52 acres, the western 51 cents was sold
to one Ayyamperumal by the said Ponnammal along with her son Ramasamy
Nadar through sale deed No.1310/1971 dated 15.07.1971. Thereafter, the
said Ponnammal and her sons entered into oral partition in respect of
1.01 acres. Her son Kasi Nadar sold centre 51 cents out of 1.52 acres to one
Seenivasa nadar. The remaining eastern 50 cents was purchased by one
Sankarappa Naicker from the legal heirs of Ponnammal. Patta No.895 stood
in the name of Ayyamperumal till his life time. Thereafter, patta No.895 was
changed in the name of Seenivasa Nadar. The legal heirs of Ayyamperumal
and Seenivasa Nadar jointly sold 1.02 acres to one Thirupati under registered
Sale Deed No.926/2008, dated 04.02.2008. The survey number was sub
divided and patta granted in S.No.177/5A to Thirupathi and the patta granted
in S.No.177/5B to Sankarappa Naicker. Thiruppathi sold 1.02 acres to the
plaintiff by virtue of registered Sale Deed No.7133/2009 dated 26.08.2009
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and patta No.2377 was issued to him. From the date of purchase, the plaintiff
has been in possession and enjoyment of the said property, which is described
as suit property. The defendants colluded with revenue officials and obtained
the same patta No.2377 without any notice to the plaintiff. The plaintiff filed
an appeal before the Revenue Divisional Officer, who passed the order dated
15.03.2012 in Na.Ka.No.B6/9329/2010 restored the mutation registry in the
name of plaintiff. But the defendants continuously tried to disturb the
enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit property. The plaintiff is temporarily
residing in Singapore, so the plaintiff filed suit through power of attorney
seeking for declaration and injunction.
5. Case of the Defendants:
The averments that the suit property with a larger extent originally
belonged to Ponnammal and she along with her sons sold western 51 cents to
Ayyamperumal and middle 51 cents to Seenivasa Nadar, and that Thirupathi
purchased the above 1.02 acres from legal heirs of Ayyamperumal and
Seenivasa Nadar and that the eastern 50 cents sold to Sankarappan Naicker
are totally false. The alleged patta stood in the name of the plaintiff and his
predecessor in title are also false. In fact, 1 acre 52 cents in S.No.177/5 of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Manthithoppu was purchased by Rajasekaran, who is the husband of 1st
defendant and father of defendants 2 to 4, from Seenivasa Naicker and his
legal heirs by virtue of sale deed dated 22.05.1978. The said 1.52 acres
originally belonged to Seeinvasa Naicker’s predecessor in title one Venkata
Subba Naicker through sale deed, dated 26.08.1932. Patta for 1.52 acres was
issued to Rajasekaran, who died leaving the defendants as his legal heirs.
After his demise, the defendants have been enjoying the property. While
being so, without notice to the defendants, the S.No.177/5 was sub divided as
S.No.177/5A and 177/5B and so on application by the defendants, the said
sub divided survey number was registered in the patta of the defendants. The
plaintiff’s predecessors had no right over the said property. The defendants
enjoyed the property from 1978 through Rajasekaran and they sold the
property to one Sankaran/5th defendant on 14.07.2010. The defendants and
their purchasers have also entitled to property by adverse possession. The
defendants filed a revision against the DRO proceeding in respect of patta
granted to the plaintiff. The 5th defendant claims title through defendants
1 to 4. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6. The Trial Court framed the following issues:
''(1) Whether the suit property is absolutely
belonged to plaintiff?
(2) Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of
necessary party?
(3) Whether the suit is beyond the territorial
jurisdiction of the trial Court?
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to
declaration as prayed for?
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to
permanent injunction as prayed for?
(6) To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled
to?''
7. During trial, on the plaintiff side, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined
and marked 14 exhibits as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.14. On the defendants' side, one
witness was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.16 were marked.
Ex.X1 was also marked.
8. After hearing both sides, the learned District Munsif, Kovilpatti
concluded that the plaintiff has proved his case and decreed the suit as sought
in the plaint by passing judgment and decree, dated 13.02.2015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.131 of 2012, the
defendants preferred the Civil Appeal in A.S.No.17 of 2015 before the
Subordinate Court, Kovilpatti. The first Appellate Court after hearing both,
passed the judgment, dated 15.02.2016 dismissing the appeal in
A.S.No.17 of 2015 and confirmed the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.
131 of 2012.
10. Challenging the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court
confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the defendants have
preferred this Second Appeal and the same has been admitted for file on
27.10.2017 on the following substantial questions of law:-
''(1) Whether the Courts below are right in
rejecting the case of the defendants on the ground
that documents produced by the
appellants/defendants are after suit documents?
(2) Whether the Courts below failed to advert
the settled principle of law when a plaintiff sought
for declaration and permanent injunction, it is for
him to prove the same before court of law with
substantial oral and documents of evidence, rather
than relying upon the weakness of the defendants?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
(3) Whether the courts below right in deciding
the issue No.2 in favour of the respondent/plaintiff,
which is contradictory to their own pleadings in para
no.11 of the plaint?
(4) Whether the Courts below right in
granting decree to the respondent/plaintiff merely on
the basis of patta No.394 in the name of Ponnammal,
when the same is not issued in respect of suit
schedule property?
(5) Whether Courts below right in rejecting
the oral evidence of PW2 being a revenue official
who clearly stated about the patta no.346 (Ex.B.2
dated 29.07.1980)?
(6) Whether the respondent/plaintiff proved
his title with oral and documentary evidence before
the Courts below to discharge his initial burden as a
dominant litus?''
11. Heard both sides and perused the records in this Second Appeal.
12.The learned counsel for the appellants/defendants has submitted that
the plaintiff claims title over the suit property from Ponnammal and her sons
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
who had alleged title from 1976 through patta No.394. The defendants’
predecessor one Venkatasubba Naicker had a title in the year 1932, who
purchased the suit property from Siththava Naicker. The plaintiff states that
the suit property is in S.No.177/5A. A mere perusal of the suit property
shows that there are no boundaries mentioned for the suit property. When a
litigant seeks a declaration of title, the description of property must be given
with all particulars namely, the specific boundaries, measurements and survey
numbers as contemplated under Order 7 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code.
But, the suit property is mentioned only in the survey number. Further, the
plaintiff has not produced any title document of his vendor but only produced
revenue records. So, the entire burden rests on the plaintiff to establish his
case by producing title documents and also through cogent evidence including
a proper description of properties. Hence, it is suffice to negate the relief
sought by the plaintiff. It is a settled proposition that declaration of title
cannot be granted in the absence of the exact four boundaries of the suit
property. The plaintiff relied on Ex.A.2 - SLR copy. A bare perusal of
Ex.A.2 reveals that the plaintiff’s predecessor in title namely Ponnammal was
overwritten after scoring the existing name. There is no explanation for the
said fact on the side of the plaintiff. The plaintiff also relied on Ex.A.2 - SLR
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
copy to substantiate that the old adangal number 750 correlates to S.No.177/5.
Apart from adangal number 750, there are other numbers i.e., 748/12, 741/3
and 749/13, even the 749/13 was overwritten and probably 741/3 was altered
as 749/13. The authenticity of Ex.A.2 was not proved through any official
witness. The plaintiff has not initially proved his case. The plaintiff cannot
take advantage of weakness of the defendants' case. The plaintiff must prove
his case through oral and documentary evidence. The Courts below discarded
Ex.B.4, which is a registered sale deed, dated 29.08.1932 executed in favour
of Venkatasubbu Naicker, who is the defendants' predecessor, by Sithava
Naicker. In the schedule of properties, the adangal numbers 748/12 and 741/3
were mentioned apart from other numbers. Ex.A.2 refers the above adangal
numbers. The defendants traced the title from 1932. The plaintiff has not
produced any title deed in the name of Ponnammal. The only document is
Ex.A.1 - SLR copy, which will not substantiate the purchase by Ponnammal.
The plaintiff’s admitted evidence is that he has not claimed other survey
numbers which are shown in adangal No.750. As per Ex.A.2, S.No.177/8
also correlates old adangal No.750, so on what basis the plaintiff claimed
right in S.No.177/5 was not established by the plaintiff.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. Further, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the
Courts below failed to consider the admitted evidences of the plaintiff. The
appellants/defendants produced Ex.B.4, Ex.B.5 and Ex.B.6 and also revenue
records stood in the name of Rajasekaran in respect of suit property in
S.No.177/5A. Further, Ex.B.1 - Patta Passbook was also issued in the name
of Rajasekaran, which was also deposed by P.W.2 - Tahsildar. Ex.B.2 - Patta
No.2377 reflected the name of appellants/defendants 1 to 4. After purchase,
the name of 5th appellant/5th defendant is reflected in Ex.B.3 - Patta for
survey No.177/5A. On the date of suit, the 5th defendant was a bonafide
purchaser, who was not impleaded in the suit, but only on application filed by
the defendants 1 to 4, the 5th defendant was impleaded. Courts below
committed error in appreciating the evidences adduced on the defendants' side
and also misinterpreted the documentary evidence of the defendants. Further,
the 1st Appellate Court without considering the points independently
mechanically concurred with the findings of the trial Court. This Court is
empowered to invoke Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, to interfere
with the concurrent findings of the Courts below and hence, the Second
Appeal may be allowed. In support of his argument, the learned counsel
placed reliance on the following citations:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
''(i) 2012 (1) CTC 542 (A.M.Kothandaramasamy
Koil Thrupuvanama /v/ Vairam)
(ii) 2019-4 Law Weekly 353 (Joint Family
Manager, Sangottaiyan /v/ Nagaraj)
(iii) 2019 SAR (Civil) 765 (Jagdish Prasad Patel
(Dead) Thr. LRs. & Anr. /v/ Shivnath & Ors.)
(iv) 2019 8 SCC 637 (State of Rajasthan and
others /v/ Shiv Dayal and Ors.)
(v) 2006 (4) CTC 79 (Hero Vinoth (Minor) /v/
Seshammal)''
14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff
submitted that the defendants have raised contention for the first time in this
Second Appeal that the boundaries of the suit property were not given in the
schedule of property. Such pleading was not made in the written statement or
at the time of recording of evidences. The defendants have not anywhere
disputed the identity of the suit property. The suit property specifically
mentioned about survey number, extent and village name. It is held by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court that property can be identified by survey number or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
boundaries. The other contention is that the plaintiff's predecessor had no
right for a total 1.52 acres as her name was entered after striking out of some
other name and also two more adangal numbers mentioned along with
adgangal No.750. Ex.A2 revealed that S.No.177/5 having a total extent of
1.52 acre stood in the name of Ponnammal. So, the alleged inclusion of other
adangal numbers will not disprove the title of Ponnammal. Ex.A.2 was filed
along with plaint and the defendants have not raised any doubt upon the
genuineness of Ex.A.2. The defendants trace title to suit property under
Ex.B.4 sale deed which is relating to property measuring 32 cents in adangal
No.748/12, 52 cents in adangal No.741/3, measuring 1.5 acres in adangal
No.746/10 and 2 acres 36 cents in adangal Nos.726-729. But the suit property
is measuring 1.52 acres in adangal No.750 and in S.No.177/5. The extent and
boundaries given in Ex.B.4 and Ex.B.5 are not tallied with suit property. So it
is proved that the properties covered under Ex.B.4 entirely differ from the suit
property in S.No.177/5. Moreover, Ex.X.1 - revenue file reflects the transfer
of patta in favour of plaintiff for suit property in S.No.177/5. Whereas the
defendants have not produced any transfer of patta proceedings. The
defendants 1 to 4 and the 5th defendant have contested the case separately.
Neither the defendants 1 to 4 nor the 5th defendant entered into witness box to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
prove their case. It is a settled proposition that if the party to the suit did not
enter into witness box and depose his own case on oath and does not offer
himself for cross examination by other side, a presumption would arise that
the case set up by him is not correct under Section 114 (g) of the Evidence
Act.
15. The learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff further submitted
that in this case, the husband of the second defendant was examined as
D.W.1, who admitted in his evidence that he did not know directly anything
about the sale of Rajasekaran and prior sale to Rajasekaran. The plaintiff
proved his case by examining himself and through Ex.A.2 to Ex.A.14.
The Courts below correctly appreciated the evidences of the plaintiff and
correctly came into conclusion. A Second Appeal Court is not expected to
conduct a third trial on facts and the appeal to be heard only on substantial
question of law formulated by the High Court. The questions of law framed
in this case are not substantial questions of law. The finding of the Courts
below is concurrent one. Concurrent findings could not be set aside unless
question of law decided favouring appellants in the Second Appeal.
The question of law could not be decided in favour of the appellants as the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
suit was factually decided by the Courts below. Therefore, this Second
Appeal may be dismissed. In support of his argument, the learned counsel
for the respondent/plaintiff relied on the following citations:
''(i) Judgement in S.A.No.133 of 2006 dated
08.12.2010 of High Court, Madras (Pormanan & Ors. /v/
P.Thiagarajan)
(ii) 2022 (7) MLJ 437 (SC) (Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. /v/ Ajay Bhatia)
(iii) 2015 (13) SCC 673 (Zarif Ahmad /v/ Mohd.
Farooq)
(iv) 2010 (10) SCC 512 (Man Kaur (dead) by
LRs /v/ Hartar Singh Sangha)
(v) 2021 (2) SCC 718 (Iqbal Basith & Ors. /v/
N.Subbalakshmi & Ors.)
(vi) 2007 (1) CTC 334 (Gurdev Kaur & Ors /v/ Kaki
& Ors.)
(vii) 2018 (18) SCC 303 (Ramathal /v/ Maruthathal
& Ors.)''
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
16. Heard the arguments of both and perused the material records of the
case. It is the contention of the appellants/defendants that the description of
property is not correctly mentioned as per the provision under Order 7 Rule 3
of the Civil Procedure Code and four boundaries of property are also not
mentioned. It is their further contention that in a suit for declaration of title,
correct identification of property must be shown by relying on citations
reported in 2019-4 Law Weekly 353 (Joint Family Manager,
Sangottaiyan /v/ Nagaraj) and 2012 (1) CTC 542 (A.M.Kothandaramasamy
Koil Thrupuvanama /v/ Vairam). Per contra, the learned counsel for the
respondent/plaintiff contended that the appellants/defendants raised such
contention in this Second Appeal only, they have not raised such allegation
before the trial Court while filing written statement as well as letting in
evidence. It is further contended by the plaintiff that the mentioning of
extent with survey number and village is sufficient and there is no dispute in
respect of identity of suit property. The respondent/plaintiff relied on
citations reported in 2022 (7) MLJ 437 (SC) (Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. /v/ Ajay Bhatia) and 2015 (13) SCC 673 (Zarif Ahmad /v/
Mohd. Farooq).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
17. On perusal of records, it is clear that the suit property is mentioned
in the plaint as “Palayamkottai Registered District, Kovilpatti Sub Registrar
Circle, Kovilpatti Taluk, Manthithoppu Village, S.No.177/5A to the extent of
0.41.50 Hectare = 1.02 Acre of Punja land”. The suit is filed for declaration
that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property and consequential
injunction. On perusal of records, the defendants have not raised any
objection about the description of property before trial Court and also, there is
no dispute regarding the suit property and its extent. While considering both
citations, identity of extent with survey number and village is sufficient and
when a decree is to be executed regarding mandatory injunction and recovery
of possession, the four boundaries are necessary. In this case, as rightly
argued by the counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, there is no dispute in
respect of identity of the suit property and also the appellants/defendants have
not raised such contention before the trial Court in their written statement and
only raised in this Second Appeal. Hence, the contention of the
appellants/defendants is untenable.
18. On perusal of records, the plaintiff claims title to 1.02 acres in
S.No.177/5A from one Ponnammal, who had title over the suit property with a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
larger extent of 1.52 acres in old adangal No.750 and who was given patta
No.394 under Estate Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari Act, 26 of 1948
in the year 1960. It is their further case that one Ayyamperumal purchased
western 51 cents from the said Ponnammal and her heir and that one
Seenivasa Nadar purchased middle 51 cents from the said Ponnammal and her
heirs. It is their further case that one Thiruppathi purchased the western
51 cents and middle 51 cents from Ayyamperumal and Seenivasan vagairah.
From the said Thiruppathi the plaintiff purchased the same. The plaintiff side
marked the title deeds as Ex.A.3 to Ex.A.6. The defendants submitted that the
suit property with larger extent originally belonged to Shitthava Naicker from
whom Venkatasubbu Naicker purchased the same under Ex.B.4 sale deed and
that the said properties were shown in old adgangal Nos.748/12, 743/1 and
749/13. The defendants’ case is that the plaintiff admitted that he purchased
the property only shown in old adangal No.750, but in Ex.A.2 - SLR copy
there is also mentioned two more old adangal number in addition to old
adangal No.750. At this juncture, on perusal of judgment of the Courts
below, the document Ex.B.4 has been discussed, it is observed that in Ex.B.4
the description of properties mentioned as 50 cents in adangal number 748/12,
51 cents in adangal number 741/3, 105 cents in adangal number 746/1 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
also the properties bearing adangal Nos.726, 727, 728 and 729 and so the
defendants parent deed does not bear the old adangal number 750 and its
property with larger extent of 1.52 acre. So, the Courts below correctly
discussed and came to conclusion that the defendants predecessor had no
right or title over the property bearing old adangal number 750, as the
purchase of the property through Ex.B.4 and Ex.B.5, the defendant cannot
derive title over property in S.No.177/5A and based on Ex.B.5, the patta
Ex.B.1 is also not sufficient to prove the case of defendants. The plaintiff’s
predecessor purchased the property prior to Ex.B.4, i.e. through Ex.A.3, dated
15.07.1973 and Ex.A.4, dated 29.9.1976. The plaintiff produced documents
to correlate that the property under old adangal number 750 is the present
survey No.177/5A. The patta was also issued in favour of plaintiff’s
predecessor and it also evident from records that when patta was granted to
defendant for the said survey number, the plaintiff made objection application
and mutation of transfer of patta proceedings was issued. This was clearly
evident from Ex.X.1.
19. On perusal of records, on the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s
power of attorney, Dhanapal and another witness were examined as P.W.1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and P.W.2. On the side of the defendants, none of the defendants was
examined as a witness, instead, one Selvaraj, husband of 2nd defendant was
examined as D.W.1. It is evident from the evidence of D.W.1 that he did not
know directly about the sale of Rajasekaran and his prior sale and patta
obtained in the name of the defendant was cancelled and re-transferred to the
plaintiff name in the revenue records. In this connection, on perusal of both
sides citations, it is clear that if a litigant to the suit did not enter into witness
box and depose his own case on oath and did not offer himself for cross
examination by other side, a presumption would be arisen that the case set up
by the litigant is not correct under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act.
In this case, the plaintiff proved his case by examining himself and produced
documents. Whereas the defendants 1 to 4 and 5th defendant, who contested
the suit separately, did not enter into witness box and did not give evidence
on oath to prove their case. So, the argument of the plaintiff has some force.
Of course, the Court could not conclude the case by taking advantage of
weakness of the case of the defendant. But, in this case, the plaintiff
established their case by letting in oral and documentary evidence.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
20. The Courts below correctly appreciated the case and the same need
not re-appreciated in this Second Appeal. The defendants only filed a patta
stood in their name, which is also after the suit. On perusal of records, on
defendants' side, there are no correlation revenue records to show the suit
property S.No.177/5A disclosed from their old adangal numbers 748/12,
741/13 and 749/13. The Courts below correctly appreciated the evidence
adduced on both sides. This Court cannot sit to conduct third trial of facts as
held in 2007 (1) CTC 334 (Gurdev Kaur & Ors /v/ Kaki & Ors.) and 2018
(18) SCC 303 (Ramathal /v/ Maruthathal & Ors. Further, the
appellants/defendants cannot plead new set of facts in the Second Appeal, the
appellants/defendants can challenge only substantial questions of law based
on their pleadings and evidences placed before the trial Court. On perusal of
records, the plaintiff traces the title of suit property through Ponnammal and
established their case by oral and documentary evidence. Whereas the
defendants, who trace the title of suit property from Venkatasubbu Naicker,
have not established their case through oral and documentary evidence.
As rightly contended by the plaintiff side, the defendants did not enter into
witness box and did not give evidence on oath to substantiate their case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
In the above facts and circumstances, the questions of law 1, 2 and 4 to 6 are
answered against the appellants/defendants.
21. The next contention raised by the appellants/defendants is that issue
No.2 “whether the suit is hit by principles of non-joinder of necessary party.”
It is not disputed that after filing suit, the 5th defendant was impleaded. After
impleadment of 5th defendant, the defendants had not challenged the same by
filing a Civil Revision or Appeal. Further, it is evident that the defendants
1 to 4 contested the case separately and also the 5th defendant has also
contested the case separately. Both filed the appeal before the first Appellate
Court. So, the trial Court correctly concluded that the suit is not bad for non
joinder of necessary parties, hence, this question of law is answered against
the appellants/defendants.
22. On perusal of judgments of the Courts below, the Courts below
found concurrent findings based on evidences adduced in the case. The said
findings need not be interfered by this Court by way of Second Appeal.
The rulings relied on by the appellants/defendants side will not support their
case, whereas the rulings relied on by the respondent/plaintiff side, are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
squarely applicable to the facts of this case. Hence, the questions of law
framed in this Second Appeal are answered against the appellants/defendants.
Thus, this Second Appeal fails.
23. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and
decree, dated 15.02.2016 passed in A.S.No.17 of 2015 on the file of the Sub
Court, Kovilpatti, confirming the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2015
passed in O.S.No.131 of 2012 on the file of District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti
is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is
closed.
06.08.2024
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
VSD
To
1. The Sub Court, Kovilpatti.
2. The District Munsif Court, Kovilpatti.
3.The Record Keeper,
Vernacular Records,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.VADAMALAI, J.
VSD
Pre-Delivery Judgment made in
06.08.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
