Madras High Court
C.Loganayaki (Died) vs Sabira Bi on 29 January, 2025
S.A.No.949 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 07.01.2025
Pronounced on 29.01.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
S.A.No.949 of 2009
and
M.P.No.1 of 2009
1. C.Loganayaki (Died)
2. Chennappan
3. Guberan
4. Uma
5. Pramila
6. C.Purushothaman
[Appellants 2 to 6 brought on record as LRs of the
deceased sole appellant viz., C.Loganayaki vide order
of Court dated 24.09.2020 made in C.M.P.No.10517,
10520 and 10523 of 2020 in S.A.No.949 of 2009] ... Appellants
Vs.
1. Sabira Bi
2. Chotima Bi
3. Habiba Bi (Died)
4. Fathima Bi (Died)
5. Ahmed Basha (Died)
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.949 of 2009
6. Usman
7. Muthulip
8. Hakim
9. Amalulla
10. Habija
11. Munira
[R3 died. R7 to R11 are brought on record as LRs of the
deceased R3 vide order of the Court dated 26.04.2024 made
in CMP Nos.7239, 7241 and 7291 of 2024 in S.A.No.949 of 2009]
12. Mumthaj
13. Idhayathullah
14. Aanarkali
15. Najira Banu
16. Thahira Banu
17. Mubina
18. Shan Basha
19. Mohamed Kasim
[R5 Died. RR12 to 19 are brought on record as LRs of the
deceased R5 vide order of Court dated 26.04.2024 made
in CMP Nos.7289, 7290 and 7244 of 2024 in
S.A.No.949 of 2009] ... Respondents
Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code, to allow the above second appeal by setting aside the judgement and
decree passed by the Sub-Court, Dharmapuri in A.S.No.72 of 2002 dated
28.08.2006 dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgement and decree
passed by the District Munsif Court, Harur in O.S.No.599 of 1995 dated
30.09.2002, allowing the suit for partition and separate possession filed by
the respondents 1 to 4 herein.
For Appellants : Mr. Sathia Chandran
2/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.949 of 2009
For R1 & R2 : No appearance
For R3, R4 & R5 : Died
For R6 & R7 to R11 : No appearance
For R12 to R16 : Mr.Saravanakumar
*****
JUDGEMENT
The instant Second Appeal has been filed against the judgement and
decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri in A.S. No. 72
of 2002, dated 28.08.2006.
2. The appellant herein is the third defendant, the respondents 1 to 4
are the plaintiffs, and the respondents 5 and 6 are the first and second
defendants before the Trial Court. After the demise of the respondents 3, 4,
and 5, their legal heirs were brought on record.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to
according to their litigative status before the Trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4. The brief facts which give rise to the instant Second Appeal are that,
the plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the defendants 1 and 2 are the daughters and sons of
one deceased Budan Sahib and Fathima Bi, the fourth plaintiff. The plaintiffs
1 to 4 and the defendants 1 and 2 are governed by Mohammedan Law of
succession. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit property belongs to
their family, and that they are entitled to 1/8th share each, and the defendants
1 and 2 are entitled to 2/8th share each, in the suit property.
5. The said suit was resisted by the third defendant, who is the alleged
subsequent purchaser. The other legal heirs of the late Budan Sahib, viz., the
first and second defendants, did not file any written statement, and they were
set ex parte. The third defendant, viz., C. Loganayaki, would submit that, the
suit property is not the family property of the plaintiff, and that the said
property was in the occupation and enjoyment of the second defendant, viz.,
Usman, and that on 11.02.1989, she purchased the said property from him.
He would further state that, ever since the purchase, she has been in actual
physical possession and enjoyment of the property. It is her specific
submission that since the suit property absolutely belongs to the second
defendant, the suit property is not amenable to partition. Hence, she prayed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to dismiss the suit.
6. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiffs have examined PW1 to PW4
and marked as many as 19 documents as Exs. A1 to A19. On behalf of the
defendants, DW1 to DW18 were examined, and Exs. B1 to B3 were marked.
7. The Trial Court has framed as many as nine issues and ultimately
found that the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree as prayed for. However, the
Trial Court found that the suit was under-valued, and directed the plaintiff to
pay the deficit Court fee within three weeks from the date of the order.
However, the plaintiffs did not aggrieve with the said finding. Hence, the
third defendant alone preferred the first appeal. The First Appellate Court, on
re-appreciation of evidence and documents, has ultimately concurred with
the finding of the Trial Court.
8. Aggrieved with the judgment of the First Appellate Court, the third
defendant preferred the instant Second Appeal.
9. I have heard Mr.S.Sathia Chandran, the learned counsel for the
appellants, and Mr.S.Saravanakumar, the learned counsel for the twelfth to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
sixteenth respondents.
10. The learned counsel for the appellants/third defendant would
vehemently contend that, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have
not considered the oral and documentary evidence in it's right perspective
and has only proceeded based upon presumption and assumption. It is also
the specific contention of the learned counsel that, there is no proof to show
the suit property as the ancestral property of the plaintiffs. It is also
contended that the Revenue Records submitted by the plaintiffs are not
related to the suit property. It is the further submission of the learned counsel
that the issuance of patta in her name, would vindicate her title over the suit
property. He would further contend that, both the Courts below have not
considered the material aspect of their contention. It is the further submission
that the First Appellate Court did not formulate points for determination
before arriving at conclusion. Accordingly contended that, the judgement of
the First Appellate Court has got an inherent infirmity. Hence, prayed to
allow the instant Second Appeal.
11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 12 to 16, who
are the legal heirs of the first defendant, would vehemently contend that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
contrary to the specific case of the subsequent purchaser qua the third
defendant denying the plaintiff's ownership, the plaintiffs had submitted as
many as 13 documents to substantiate their right over the suit. It is the
further contention of the learned counsel that the title deed relied upon by the
third defendant is an unregistered sale deed, and he would also contend that
the Revenue Records cannot be a document of title. He would also contend
that there are no grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of both the
Courts below. Hence, prayed to dismiss the instant Second Appeal.
12. I have given my anxious consideration of the submissions made on
either side.
13. The foremost contention raised by the learned counsel for the third
defendant is that, the First Appellate Court did not follow the mandatory
procedure as contemplated under Order XLI, Rule 31 of CPC. As rightly
submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants, the First Appellate Court
has formulated only an omnibus point for determination. However, while
looking at the order, the First Appellate Court had taken cognizance of the
oral and documentary evidence and made substantial compliance with the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
provisions under order 41 Rule 31, by answering all the issues dealt by the
Trial Court. Therefore, merely because there was an omnibus point for
determination, in the above background, it cannot be a reason to interfere
with the order of the First Appellate Court.
14. The learned counsel for the appellants would further contend that
the entire finding of the Trial Court is based upon presumption and
assumption, as the plaintiffs did not submit any concrete evidence to show
their right over the property. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the
pleadings of the third defendant. According to the third defendant, the
deceased Budan Sahib and his legal heirs qua plaintiff and the defendants 1
and 2 had never lived in Poiyyapatti Village, and that they were residing
somewhere else. But in contrast to the above contention, the plaintiffs had
produced the Revenue Records and demonstrated that they have got property
in Poiyyapatti Village, curiously those Revenue Records are related to the
suit property. The third defendant, having taken a defence that the plaintiffs'
family ever resided and do not have any property in Poiyyapatti Village, after
producing the Revenue Records, developed her case and contended that
those Revenue Records do not relate to the suit property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15. As rightly observed by the Trial Court, when the plaintiffs were
able to substantiate through the Revenue Records about their right over the
suit property, the third defendant, who took a defence that the plaintiffs'
family did not have property in Poiyyapatti Village, failed to prove that those
Revenue Records are not related to the suit property. In this view of the
matter, the findings rendered by the Trial Court, that the Revenue Records
starting from 1964, would clinchingly prove the plaintiffs' case, is liable to
be accepted. Here, though the third defendant had independently set up title
by virtue of a sale deed dated 11.02.1989, the said sale deed is an
unregistered sale deed. Accordingly, the same cannot be relied upon to prove
the title over the suit property. Apart from that, even the Revenue Records
relied by the third defendant, which came into existence just prior to the date
of filing of the suit, cannot be the basis for the title, as the Revenue Records
relied by the plaintiffs were prior in point of time.
16. In our case, there is concrete evidence that the deceased Budan
Sahib has paid the kist receipts since 1964, and the revenue records stand in
his name. In such view of the matter, mere sale by Usman, viz., the second
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
defendant, will in no way confer any right over the property to it's entire
extent. Apart from that, even for a moment, if it is accepted that the said
Usman had sold the property to the third defendant, as this Court already
stated, the said sale deed admittedly an unregistered one, which become
inadmissible, therefore, the same would in no way be helpful to the third
defendant to prove her title.
17. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that by
virtue of the UDR patta [Ex.B5] issued during 1991, and it's confirmation by
the Revenue Divisional Officer [Ex.B10], it would be sufficient to prove title
over the suit property. But I am in disagreement with the above submission.
Those document may be sufficient to prove possession, but this Court
deciding a partition suit, filed by the legal heirs of Budan Sahib. Therefore,
to grant the relief of partition, the possession of the third party is not a bar.
Accordingly, I do not find any perversity in the order of the First Appellant
Court. Further, in view of the above discussion, there are no substantial
questions of law arising in this Second Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
18. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the
connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.
29.01.2025
kv
Index : Yes/No
Speaking order /Non Speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes/No
To
1. The Sub-Court,
Dharmapuri.
2. The District Munsif Court,
Harur.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
kv
29.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
