Madras High Court
Kaliyuga Kannadasan vs Dhanalakshmi on 12 November, 2024
Author: R. Hemalatha
Bench: R.Hemalatha
S.A.No.870 of 2022
& C.M.P. No.17750 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.11.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
S.A.No.870 of 2022
and
C.M.P. No.17750 of 2022
Kaliyuga Kannadasan ...Appellant
Vs.
1. Dhanalakshmi
2. Jayaprakash ... Respondents
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908 against the
decree and judgment dated 30.11.2021 passed in A.S. No.2 of 2019, on
the file of the Sub Court, Madurantakam, upholding the decree and
judgment dated 11.12.2017 passed in O.S.No.321 of 2012, on the file of
the District Munsif, Madurantakam.
For Appellant : Mr.A.J.Mohamed Kassim
For Respondents : Mr.M.S.Subramanian
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.870 of 2022
& C.M.P. No.17750 of 2022
JUDGMENT
The unsuccessful plaintiff before both the Courts below has
filed the present second appeal.
2. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.321/2012 before the
District Munsif, Madurantakam, for declaration of his title over the suit
property morefully described in the plaint schedule as a wet land in
survey numbers 39/5B and 39/5E of Mogalvadi Village, Madurantakam
Taluk, Kancheepuram District. The plaintiff has also sought for a
permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per
their ranking in the trial court and at appropriate places, their rank in the
present second appeal would also be indicated.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.The case of the plaintiff in a nutshell is as follows :
The suit property is the ancestral property of Bakthavachala
Reddiar. The said Bakthavachala Reddiar sold the suit property in favour
of the plaintiff through a registered sale deed dated 25.09.2008 (Ex.A1)
and ever since the date of purchase, the plaintiff is in possession and
enjoyment of the suit property. The patta (Ex.A3) has also been issued in
favour of the plaintiff by the revenue authorities. The plaintiff has been
paying kists to the Government. The defendants who are strangers to the
suit property are attempting to trespass into the suit property and one
such attempt was made on 07.12.2012 and hence, the suit.
5. The suit was resisted by the defendants on the following
grounds:
i. The suit property in S.No.39/5 of Mogalvadi Village admeasuring
1 acre, was purchased by Senga Reddiar, father-in-law of the first
defendant and grandfather of the second defendant, through a
registered sale deed dated 29.05.1961 (Ex.B1) from one
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Veerasamy Reddiar and others for valuable consideration and ever
since the date of purchase Senga Reddiar was enjoying the said
property. After his death, his son Veerasamy Reddiar (husband of
the first defendant) was enjoying the suit property. Thereafter, the
defendants are in enjoyment of 2.09 acres in S.No.39/5.
ii. The revenue authorities had mistakenly granted patta under UDR
scheme in the name of Bakathavachala Reddiar and taking
advantage of the same, the present plaintiff is claiming title to the
suit property. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court framed
the following issues :
i. "Whether the plaintiff is having the right and title over the suit
properties?
ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration?
iii. Whether the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit
properties?
iv. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
injunction?
v. To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled?"
7. In the trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself and one
another witness and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. The first defendant
examined himself and one another witness and marked Ex.B1 and Ex.B6.
The Tahsildar, Madurantakam was examined as C.W.1 and Ex.C1 and
Ex.C2 were marked through him.
8.After full contest, the learned District Munsif,
Madurantakam, dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff, vide his decree
and judgment dated 11.12.2017, on the following grounds:-
i. The plaintiff has not proved his title over the suit property by
adducing acceptable evidence.
ii. The patta is not a document of title.
iii. The kist receipt dated 05.01.2008 is subsequent to the purchase
made by the plaintiff and therefore, no credence can be attached to
the said document.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
iv. The plaintiff has also admitted that the defendants are in
possession of the suit property by raising coconut trees.
9. Aggrieved over the decree and judgment passed by the trial
court, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S. No.2 of 2019, before the Sub
Court, Madurantakam. The learned Sub Judge, Madurantakam, after
analysing the oral and documentary evidence adduced on both sides,
upheld the findings recorded by the trial court vide her decree and
judgment dated 30.11.2021, as against which the present second appeal is
filed.
10. Heard Mr.A.J.Mohamed Kassim, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr.M.S.Subramanian, learned counsel for the respondents.
11. The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of his title to
the suit property and for a permanent injunction restraining the
defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment
over the same. In order to substantiate his title over the suit property, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
plaintiff relied on a certified copy of the sale deed executed by
Bakthavachala Reddiar in his favour on 25.09.2008 (Ex.A1) and the patta
issued by the Revenue Authorities dated 04.12.2012 (Ex.A3) and also
kist receipts (Ex.A4 and Ex.A5). According to the plaintiff, the suit
property was ancestral property of Bakthavachala Reddiar. However, in
Ex.A1 it is stated that the property belonged to Bakthavachala Reddiar.
The plaintiff did not substantiate that the suit property was originally
owned by Bakthavachala Reddiar by adducing the parent documents. The
Tahsildar of Madurantakam Taluk, who was examined as C.W.1 had
deposed that survey number 39/5 was subdivided as 5A, 5B, 5C, 5D and
5E even in the year 2008. It is pertinent to point out that the plaintiff has
not described the four boundaries of the suit properties.
12. Mr.A.J.Mohamed Kassim, learned counsel for the
appellant relied on the patta (Ex.A3) and contended that the plaintiff has
established his title and possession over the suit property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
13. It is pertinent to point out that the patta is not a document
of title and in the absence of any evidence to show that the plaintiff is
entitled to the suit property, this Court cannot grant a decree of
declaration of title to the suit property in favour of the plaintiff.
Moreover, the plaintiff has not also filed the original sale deed allegedly
executed by Bakthavachala Reddiar. Apart from that, the plaintiff also
admitted during the course of cross examination that the defendants are
in possession of the suit property and that coconut trees were raised by
them. Thus the plaintiff has not proved either the title or possession over
the suit property. Both the Courts below, by a well reasoned order, had
dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. There is no substantial question
of law involved in the present second appeal and hence the second appeal
stands dismissed.
14. In the result,
i. the Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently
connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
ii. The decree and judgment dated 30.11.2021 passed in A.S. No.2
of 2019, on the file of the Sub Court, Madurantakam, and the
decree and judgment dated 11.12.2017 passed in O.S.No.321 of
2012, on the file of the District Munsif, Madurantakam, are
upheld.
12.11.2024
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
mtl
To
1. The Sub Court, Madurantakam.
2. The District Munsif, Madurantakam.
3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R. HEMALATHA, J.
mtl
12.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
