Madras High Court
K.Rajendran vs P.T.Ranganathan on 7 January, 2025
2025:MHC:4338
S.A.No.813 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 03 / 10 / 2024
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 07 / 01 / 2025
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
S.A.NO.813 OF 2018
AND CMP NO.22559 OF 2018
K.Rajendran ... Appellant / Appellant /
S/o.Kaliyan Plaintiff
Mattigai Village Colony,
Ulundurpet Taluk,
Villupuram District.
Vs.
P.T.Ranganathan ... Respondent / Respondent /
S/o. Thangavel Defendant
Kattukudalur Village & Post,
Panruti Taluk,
Cuddalore District.
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated
February 26, 2018 made in A.S.No.10 of 2017 by the learned Subordinate
Judge, Ulundurpet, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated July 24,
2015 made in O.S.No.365 of 2011 by the learned Principal District
Munsif, Ulundurpet.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.1 of 14
S.A.No.813 of 2018
For Appellant : Mr.R.Rajarajan
For Respondent : Mr.R.Gururaj
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and
Decree dated February 26, 2018 passed in A.S.No.10 of 2017 by the
'Subordinate Court, Ulundurpet' ['First Appellate Court' for brevity],
whereby the Judgment and Decree dated July 24, 2015 passed in
O.S.No.365 of 2011 by the 'Principal District Munsif Court, Ulundurpet'
['Trial Court' for brevity] was confirmed.
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be
referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE
3. The Suit Property originally belonged to Arunachala
Reddiar, Lakshminarayana Reddiar and their minor brother - Venkatesan.
Arunachala Reddiar was the guardian of his minor brother - Venkatesan.
All of them were in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property and
later, it was sold to the plaintiff through a registered Sale Deed dated
March 15, 1983. Based on the Sale Deed, the plaintiff obtained patta in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.2 of 14
his name and paid taxes. The plaintiff has been in possession of the Suit
Property for over 12 years. Accordingly, the plaintiff claims prescriptive
rights over the same as well.
3.1. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has no right in
the Suit Property. Further, it was falsely alleged by the defendant that on
December 30, 1999, Arunachala Reddiar and his family members
collusively executed a Sale Agreement in favour of the defendant and that
the defendant filed a case in O.S.No.142 of 2004 for specific performance
of the said Sale Agreement and obtained an ex-parte Decree in his favour.
Neither the plaintiff nor the erstwhile owner, who sold the Suit Property
to him, were parties to the above said Suit. Furthermore, since the Suit
Property had already been sold to the plaintiff in the year 1983 itself, the
alleged Sale Deed said to have been executed in the year 1999 is invalid.
The ex-parte Decree obtained by the defendant was based on false claims
and hence, it is null and void.
3.2. Further when the defendant attempted to trespass into the
Suit Property on December 19, 2011 under the pretext of having Decree
in his favour, the plaintiff prevented him from doing so. Therefore, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.3 of 14
plaintiff sought for declaration of title and permanent injunction against
the defendant.
DEFENDANT'S CASE
4. The defendant filed written statement denying the
allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint. According to the defendant,
the Suit Property and some other properties originally belonged to
Vijayaram Reddiar. Since Vijayaram Reddiar failed to pay the dues to the
Government, the Suit Property was declared as government-owned barren
land vide Proceedings No.A6/50268/1968 dated December 3, 1968 of the
Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirukovilur. After the demise of Vijayaram
Reddiar, his heirs including Arunachala Reddiar, settled the dues and
applied for re-assignment of the land. Subsequently, on October 12, 1999,
after due enquiry, the land was re-assigned to the heirs of Vijayaram
Reddiar.
4.1. Thereafter, on December 30, 1999, Vijayaram Reddiar’s
heirs entered into a Sale Agreement with the defendant, agreeing to sell
the Suit Property and some other properties for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees
One Lakh only), of which Rs.98,000/- was paid. Though the defendant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.4 of 14
repeatedly insisted on the registration of Sale Deed after receiving the
balance sale consideration, Vijayaram Reddiar’s heirs delayed the process.
Therefore, the defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.61 of 2000 on the file of
Sub Court, Villupuram for specific performance, which was later
transferred to Munsif Court, Villupuram and renumbered as O.S.No.142
of 2004, which resulted in an ex-parte Decree in favour of the defendant
on January 30, 2006.
4.2. Further, vide Execution Petition No. 503 of 2009, the ex-
parte Decree was executed and consequently, a Sale Deed was executed
in favour of the defendant. The defendant also filed Execution Petition
No.47 of 2011 seeking recovery of possession and accordingly, the
possession of the Suit Property was delivered to him on January 5, 2012.
According to the defendant, the plaintiff has no ownership right, as the
property was validly sold to the defendant. Thus, the defendant sought to
dismiss the Suit.
TRIAL COURT
5. At trial, plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and two other
witnesses were examined as P.W.2 and P.W.3, and Ex-A.1 to Ex-A.10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.5 of 14
were marked on the side of the plaintiff. On the side of the defendant, the
defendant was examined as D.W.1, and two other witnesses were
examined as D.W.2 and D.W.3, and Ex-B.1 to Ex-B.12 were marked.
6. Upon hearing both sides and considering the evidence
available on record, the Trial Court concluded that the vendor of plaintiff
under Ex-A.1 – Sale Deed has only 3/5 share in the Suit Property and
hence, the plaintiff is entitled only to the said extent. Since the plaintiff is
in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property, it is not right to assert
that the defendant obtained possession through legal heirs of Vijayaram
Reddiar through Court proceedings. Accordingly, it dismissed the Suit
with an observation that Ex-A.1- Sale Deed is valid only in respect of 3/5
share in the Suit Property.
FIRST APPELLATE COURT
7. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before
the First Appellate Court, which after hearing both sides and perusing the
documents available on record, dismissed the appeal and also set aside the
observation made by the Trial Court with regard to validity of Ex-A.1 –
Sale Deed in respect of 3/5 share in the Suit Property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.6 of 14
SECOND APPEAL
8. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred this Second
Appeal which was admitted by this Court on December 17, 2018 on the
following Substantial Questions of Law:
' 1) Whether the first Appellate Court is correct in reversing the
finding of the trial Court with respect to the title and possession
in the absence of any cross objection filed by the Defendant /
Respondent under order 41 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure
Code.
2) Whether the first Appellate Court is correct in reversing the
finding of the trial Court regarding the possession without
considering the documentary evidence marked as Ex.A1 to
Ex.A10 on the side of the Appellant / Plaintiff. '
ARGUMENTS
9. Mr.R.Rajarajan, the learned Counsel for the appellant /
plaintiff would argue that the First Appellate Court failed to consider
Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in proper perspective;
that the First Appellate Court failed to consider the fact that the plaintiff
herein was not a party to the Suit in O.S.No.142 of 2004; that the Trial
Court held that the plaintiff’s vendor had only 3/5 share and hence, Ex-
A.1 - Sale Deed of the plaintiff is valid for 3/5 share; that the defendant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.7 of 14
did not prefer any appeal against the Trial Court's Judgment and Decree;
that in the absence of an appeal or cross objection, the observation of the
First Appellate Court is against the provisions of law; that the Trial Court
ought to have decreed the Suit as prayed for; that the First Appellate
Court failed to consider the fact that the Judgment and Decree of the Trial
Court in O.S.No.142 of 2004 was obtained collusively with a view to
defeat and defraud the plaintiff. Accordingly, he would pray to set aside
the Judgment and Decree of the First Appellate Court as well as the Trial
Court and decree the Original Suit.
10. Per contra, Mr.R.Gururaj, learned Counsel for the
respondent / defendant would submit that though the defendant did not
prefer any appeal against the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial
Court, the defendant is entitled to question the findings recorded by the
Trial Court in view of Order XLI Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code,
1908. The First Appellate Court rightly appreciated the facts and
evidence, and dismissed the appeal and set aside the findings recorded in
favour of the plaintiff by the Trial Court as well. Hence, there is no
warrant to interfere with it. Accordingly, he would pray to dismiss the
Second Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.8 of 14
DISCUSSION
11. This Court has heard the submissions made on either side
and perused the materials available on record.
12. Admittedly, the Suit Properties were originally owned by
Vijayaram Reddiar, who passed away leaving behind his wife -
Vijayalakshmi Ammal and four sons - Arunachala Reddiar, Lakshmi
Narayanan, Minor Venkatesan and Raju Sundaram. The plaintiff
purchased the property from Arunachala Reddiar, Lakshmi Narayanan and
Minor Venkatesan by way of Ex-A.1 - Sale Deed. Hence, Ex-A.1 – Sale
Deed is valid only in respect of 3/5 share in the Suit Property. It appears
that on the date of execution of Sale Deed itself, revenue recovery
proceedings were pending and the Government had declared the Suit
Property as 'unassessed vacant tharisu' (Vy jhpR). Thereafter,
Vijayarama Reddiar's family members cleared the debts due to the
Government and got re-assignment of the land. In this case, the plaintiff’s
vendors sold the Suit Property to the plaintiff erroneously representing as
if they had rights over the entire extent of the Suit Property. Hence, as per
Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, though on the date of
Ex-A.1 – Sale Deed, the vendors had no right to sell the Suit Property, in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.9 of 14
view of the subsequent acquisition of title in the Suit Property, the
vendors or person claiming through them, have no right to challenge the
Sale Deed in respect of the 3/5 share. Hence, Ex-A.1 – Sale Deed is valid
but only in respect of 3/5 share of the Suit Property.
13. The defendant entered into an Sale Agreement with
Vijayarama Reddiar’s family members on December 30, 1999. Based on
the Sale Agreement, the defendant filed a Suit in O.S.No.142 of 2004 for
specific performance and obtained an ex-parte Decree, pursuant to which,
he took possession of the Suit Property on January 5, 2012 from
Vijayarama Reddiar's family. To be noted, three out of five legal heirs of
Vijayarama Reddiar had already sold their shares in the Suit Property vide
Ex-A.1 to the plaintiff. The plaintiff herein is not a party to the Suit in
O.S.No.142 of 2004. Naturally, the plaintiff, as a third party, has no right
to implead himself in the said Original Suit. Though the Sale Deed was
executed by the Court on behalf of the defendant in O.S.No.142 of 2004,
the Sale Deed is valid only in respect of 2/5 share, in view of Ex-A.1 –
Sale Deed. In other words, since the plaintiff had already purchased 3/5
share vide Ex-A.1 - Sale Deed, the defendant's Sale Deed is valid only in
respect of 2/5 share in the Suit Property. The plaintiff and the defendant
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.10 of 14
are co-owners having shares in the ratio of 3 : 2. Hence, the Trial Court
rightly dismissed the Suit with a finding that the plaintiff is entitled to 3/5
share in the Suit Property; that the defendant is entitled to 2/5 share
therein; and that the parties are at liberty to work out their remedy by
filing a Suit for partition. The First Appellate Court without considering
the scope and ambit of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882,
erroneously dismissed the appeal and set aside the finding made by the
Trial Court that the plaintiff is entitled to 3/5 share in the Suit Property.
14. It is settled law that the defendant while supporting the
Trial Court's Judgment and Decree as respondent before the First
Appellate Court, though he may not have preferred an appeal over the
Trial Court’s Judgment and Decree, he can very well question the findings
recorded by the Trial Court against him, in view of Order XLI Rule 22 of
the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 [See Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Ravinder Kumar Sharma -vs- State of Assam, reported in
(1999) 7 SCC 435].
15. As already stated supra, as per Ex-A.1 – Sale Deed, the
plaintiff is entitled to 3/5 share in the Suit Property and the defendant is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.11 of 14
entitled to 2/5 share. In order to avoid the multiplicity of proceedings and
in the interest of justice, this Court is of the view that there is no need for
the parties to file a separate Suit for partition, instead, in view of the other
reliefs sought for under Paragraph No.6 (3) of the plaint, this Court by
invoking its discretionary power, is inclined to divide the Suit Property as
per law.
CONCLUSION:
16. In fine,
(i) The Second Appeal is allowed in part and the
Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court as well as
the First Appellate Court are set aside;
(ii) It is hereby declared that the plaintiff is entitled to
3/5 share in the Suit Property and to that extent, a
Preliminary Decree is passed ;
(iii) The defendant is entitled to get an allotment of 2/5
share in the Suit Property on payment of necessary
Court Fee;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.12 of 14
(iv) In view of the facts and circumstances of this case,
there shall be no order as to costs; and
(v) Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous
Petition is closed.
07 / 01 / 2025
Index : Yes
Speaking Order : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
TK
To
1.The Subordinate Judge
Ulundurpet.
2.The Principal District Munsif
Ulundurpet.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.13 of 14
R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
TK
PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT MADE IN
S.A.NO.813 OF 2018
07 / 01 / 2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page No.14 of 14
