Madras High Court
K.Ananth vs S.Palaniandi on 26 June, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
A.S.No.424 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.06.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
A.S.No.424 of 2022
and
C.M.P.No.15431 of 2022
K.Ananth .. Appellant
Vs.
1.S.Palaniandi
S/o.Sellaiahpillai
2.K.S.Palaniandi
S/o.Kalam @ Sellaiah Pillai
3.Sumathy
W/o.K.S.Palaniandi
4.Minor Jaya
D/o.Palaniandi
5.The Sub Registrar,
Paramathy,
Namakkal District .. Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal Suit is filed under Order 41 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure
Code, under Section 96 of C.P.C., to allow the appeal and set aside the
decree and Judgment passed by the III Additional District Judge, Salem in
O.S.No.187 of 2016 dated 10.11.2021.
For Appellant : Mr.Y.Kaja Nivas
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 01:12:48 pm )
A.S.No.424 of 2022
For R1 : Mr.Senthilkumar
for Mr.I.Arokiasamy
For R2 to R4 : Set ex-parte
For R5 : Mr.R.Siddharth
JUDGMENT
The suit was filed to declare that the plaintiff, S.Palaniandy, son of
Sellaiah Pillai, is the lawful owner of the suit schedule property pursuant
to sale deed dated 16.09.1994 and consequently to declare the settlement
deed dated 05.04.2016, executed in favour of the 1st defendant,
K.S.Palaniyandi, by impersonation, in respect of the suit schedule
property in favour of his wife Sumathy, the 2nd defendant as null and void.
It is further stated that Sumathy on her behalf and her minor daughter
Jaya sold the property to the 4th defendant on 11.04.2016, vide document
No.1153/2016. The plaintiff seeks to declare the said transactions as void
ab-initio on the grounds of impersonation and fraud and also prays for a
permanent injunction restraining the defendants from creating any further
encumbrance over the suit schedule property.
2. The suit was contested only by the 4th defendant, the
purchaser, while the defendants 1 to 3 remained absent.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 01:12:48 pm )
3. According to the 4th defendant, he is a bonafide purchaser for
value and therefore, his right ought to be protected. He has further taken a
specific stand that the settlement deed based on which he purchased the
property from the 2nd defendant, is a genuine document, duly registered in
the office of the Sub Registrar, Paramathi, on the appearance and
identification of the respective parties before the Sub Registrar.
4. The trial Court had framed the following issues based on the
pleadings:
“1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
relief of declaration as per sale deed dated
16.09.1994 as prayed for?
2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
relief of restraining the defendants by
permanent injunction as prayed for?
3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
relief of declaration as the settlement deed
dated 05.04.2016 in favour of D2 as void ab-
initio?
4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 01:12:48 pm )
relief of declaration as the sale deed dated
11.04.2016 in favour of D3 as void ab-initio as
prayed for?
5.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for
permanent injunction against D5 as prayed
for?
6.To what other relief?”
5. The plaintiff, in order to establish that Ex.A3, settlement
deed dated 05.04.2016 is void ab-initio due to impersonation, examined
three (3) witnesses and marked thirty one (31) documents as Ex.A1 to
Ex.A31. The 4th defendant alone contested the matter and mounted the
witness box and was examined as DW.1. No documents were filed on his
behalf. Ex.X1 to Ex.X4 were marked as Court documents based on
production by the Election Commission.
6. The trial Court allowed the suit in toto, being satisfied that
the Ex.A3, the settlement deed dated 05.04.201, executed in the name of
K.S.Palaniandi in favour of his wife Sumathy, was not executed by the
plaintiff, who is the lawful owner of the suit schedule property. The trial
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 01:12:48 pm )
Court had come to the conclusion based on discrepancies in the personal
details provided by the settlor and the settlee, particularly the Election
Commission Identity Card (ECIC) number.
7. Specifically, the ECIC number mentioned in Ex.A3 as
belonging to the settler, K.S.Palaniandi, son of Sellaiah Pillai actually
corresponds one Palaniappan, son of Kuppa Goundar, as per the electoral
roll marked as Ex.X4. Likewise, the settlee Sumathy, who received the
property under Ex.A3 on 05.04.2016, sold the property within six days to
the 4th defendant, who is the appellant herein, on 11.04.2016 vide Ex.A4,
disclosing her ECIC, LVY No.2456 762. However, Ex.X1 and Ex.X2, the
voter list published by the Election Commission reveals that the said
LVY 2456 762 is issued to one Sumathy, wife of Mani, whose voter ID
number is LVY 2456 788 and who is the son of Ayyanar.
8. Thus, it is evident that Ex.A3, the settlement deed dated
05.04.2016 been executed by the 1st defendant, who is not the owner of
the suit schedule property, in favour of one Sumathy, who claims to be his
wife. However, the document reveals that Sumathy is not the wife of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 01:12:48 pm )
K.S.Palaniandi, but the wife of one Mani. The other documents like
driving license of the plaintiff and the letter from TANMAG, where the
plaintiff was employed, further establish that the plaintiff is the real
owner of the suit schedule property and neither executed the settlement
deed in favour of Sumathy under Ex.A3 nor had any knowledge of the
transaction. The appellant subsequent claims title under this document as
a bonafide purchaser.
9. Being aggrieved, the appeal has been preferred by the 4th
defendant, reiterating the contentions raised before the trial Court. He
further contends that the plaintiff has not lodged any criminal complaint
regarding the alleged impersonation and has in collusion with the
defendants 1 and 2, filed the suit to deprive the appellant of his lawful
ownership.
10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted
that the appellant, being a bonafide purchaser for value, is entitled to
protection of his rights and should not be deprived the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 01:12:48 pm )
11. The point for determination:-
Whether the appellant has established that he is a bonafide
purchaser for value from the lawful owner?
12. The specific case of the plaintiff is that he purchased the suit
property under Ex.A2 dated 16.09.1994 and has been in possession of the
property without any let or hindrance. He neither settled nor alienated the
property in any manner. Ex.A3 dated 05.04.2016, allegedly executed by
the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant, is a fraudulent document
registered through impersonation. This fact is clearly established through
documentary evidence, particularly the entries found in the settlement
deed and the corresponding information found in the voter list.
13. In light of these circumstances, the plea of the appellant that
he is a bonafide purchaser must be examined in conjunction with his
conduct and other surrounding factors. In his written statement, the
appellant claimed to have purchased the suit property from defendants 1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 01:12:48 pm )
and 2 for valid consideration and the sale deed is valid as per law.
However, he failed to disclose the actual sale consideration or how it was
paid, neither through oral evidence nor documentary evidence. He has not
demonstrated that he purchased the property for valuable consideration as
a bonafide buyer.
14. The appellant's subsequent conduct further undermines his
claim. He alienated the property soon after the purchase, as admitted by
him in his cross-examination. The plaintiff has amplified doubts
regarding the appellant's bonafides by establishing that the settlement
deed allegedly executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the 2nd defendant
on 05.04.2016 was followed by a sale to the appellant on 11.04.2016 for a
consideration of Rs.7,00,000/- which was allegedly paid in cash on the
date of execution of the sale deed.
15. Two witnesses signed the sale deed Ex.A4, one is
K.S.Palaniandi son of Sellaiah Pillai and another is Selvam son of
Krishnan. However, neither of them was examined to prove the payment
of consideration or to support the appellant's claim of bonafide purchase.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 01:12:48 pm )
It is noted that K.S.Palaniandi son of Sellaiah Pillai, who witnessed the
transaction, is also the person who purportedly settled the property in
favour of the vendor. This clearly indicates that K.S.Palaniandi was
involved in fabricating documents and was part of a fraudulent scheme to
unlawfully deprive the plaintiff of his property. In such circumstances, the
appellant cannot claim to be a bonafide purchaser for value, when there is
no evidence placed by the appellant to prove his bonafide.
16. As a result, this Appeal Suit stands dismissed. Consequently,
the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. There shall
be no order as to costs.
26.06.2025
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non Speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
rpl
To
1.The III Additional District Judge, Salem
2.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court of Madras, Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 01:12:48 pm )
DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.
rpl
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 01:12:48 pm )
26.06.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 01/07/2025 01:12:48 pm )
