Madras High Court
Megala vs K.Kandan on 2 January, 2024
Author: P.T. Asha
Bench: P.T. Asha
S.A.No.909 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 02.01.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
S.A.No. 909 of 2023
1.Megala
2.Neelagandan
3.Gomathy ...Appellants
Vs.
K.Kandan ...Respondent
Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 07.09.2022 made in
A.S.No.5 of 2020 on the file of the Sub Ordinate Judge, Madurantakam
confirming the Judgement and Decree dated 18.11.2019 made in
O.S.No.126 of 2015 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Madurantakam.
For Appellants : Mr. S.Muthu Kumar
For Respondent : Mr. K.Govi Ganesan.
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.909 of 2023
JUDGMENT
The defendants who have concurrently lost before the Courts
below has moved this Second Appeal. The facts which has given raise
to the present Second Appeal is herein below set out briefly. The
parties are referred to in the same rank as before the Trial Court.
2. The plaintiff had filed the suit O.S.No.126 of 2015 on the file
of the District Munsif, Madurantakam, seeking declaration to his title to
the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the
defendants, their men and agents from interfering with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.
3. It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit property was
originally owned by one Antony, the husband of the 1st defendant and
father of the 2nd and 3rd defendants. The said Antony sold the suit
schedule property to the plaintiff's son Sankar under a registered sale
deed dated 06.05.1994. From then on the plaintiff's family has been in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
continuous possession of the suit property. The plaintiff's son had died
intestate leaving behind only the plaintiff as his sole surviving legal
representative. The plaintiff, due to ignorance had not taken steps to
get the patta transferred in his favour, taking advantage of this situation
and also with a view to capitalise on the rise in price, the defendants
started making a claim over the suit property and attempted to trespass
into the property on 30.03.2015, which was successfully prevented.
However, they had again attempted to trespass and therefore the
plaintiff has come forward with the above suit.
4. The defendants had filed a written statement inter alia denying
that the suit property belonged to Antony and that he sold it to the
plaintiff's son Sankar. The defendants would submit that the suit
property which is a Punja land was assigned to the defendants on
29.05.1984 and from then they have been in possession and enjoyment
of the same. Patta was also granted to the defendants. The defendants
would further submit that under the assignment deed, the plaintiff had
no right to purchase the suit property. Their contention was that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
revenue records stood in their name.
5. The defendants had further contended that since the property
was assigned to the defendants, the defendants only had a right to the
property and the said Antony has no right to sell the property to the
plaintiff.
6. The plaintiff had examined himself as P.W.1 and had also
examined one Kumar as P.W.2 and marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4. The
defendants on their side had examined the 1st defendant as D.W.1, the
2nd defendant as D.W.2 and one Ramesh as D.W.3 and Ex.B.1 and
Ex.B.2 were marked on their side.
7. The learned Trial Court have taken into account the fact that
both parties have admitted that the said Antony was the original owner
of the property and under Ex.A.1, the same had been sold by the said
Antony to the plaintiff on 06.05.1994. Further, under Ex.A.4, the
plaintiff had obtained an assignment patta in his name. The revenue
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
authorities have also issued patta under Ex.A.2 in favour of the
plaintiff. The learned Judge had found that the defendants had not
proved their case and the tax receipts which were marked on the side of
the defendant as Ex.B.2 did not contain the description of the property.
Further, the tax appeared to be paid for '2A', patta for porambokke land,
whereas the suit property was an assignment land. Therefore, the suit
was decreed as prayed for.
8. Challenging the same, the defendants had filed A.S.No.5 of
2020 on the file of the Sub Court, Madurantakam, who had also
confirmed the Judgement of the Trial Court.
9. Challenging the same, the defendants are before this Court.
Heard the learned counsel for the appellants.
10. The admitted case of both the parties is that the property was
assigned to one Antony. The plaintiff has proved that the said Antony
had sold the suit schedule property to him under a sale deed of the year
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1994, which has been marked as Ex.A.1. Thereafter, patta has also
been granted in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants who claims to
be in possession has filed Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2, which the Courts below
have found does not relate to the suit schedule property. Therefore,
taking into consideration the fact that the original owner of the property
had sold the property to the plaintiff who has been in possession of the
same for over two decades and whose possession was sought to be
disturbed in the month of March 2015, it is crystal clear that the
plaintiff has proved his title and possession to the suit property.
11. Both the Courts below have rightly decreed the suit and the
defendants have not made out any substantial question of law,
warranting the interference of this Court. Accordingly, the Second
Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
02.01.2024
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
kan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Sub Ordinate Judge,
Madurantakam
2.The District Munsif Court,
Madurantakam.
P.T. ASHA, J,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
kan
02.01.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
