SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2001 Supreme(Mad) 1339

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. NARAYANA KURUP & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. KULASEKARAN
P. S. M. Ahamed Abdul Khader - Appellant
Versus
T. K. Mohammed Abubucker and Others - Respondents
L.P.A. No. 125 of 2001
Decided On : 13 November 2001

Appearing Advocates:V. Raghavachari, M/s. A. J. Abdul Razak, T. R. Mani, T. M. Hariharan, Advocates.

Headnote:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908-Section 100-Letters Patent Appeal-Court has full jurisdiction to review concurrent findings of fact in letters patent appeal.

       

Judgment :-

K. NARAYANA KURUP, J.

The plaintiff in O.S. No. 72 of 1984 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram is the appellant. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree in A.S. No. 924 of 1987 of the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 25-4-2001, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court, namely, Sub-Court, Ramanathapuram in O.S. No. 72 of 1984, dated 21-7-1987.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this Letters Patent Appeal are as follows :-

The appellant/plaintiff is the owner of an extent of 5 acres 11 cents of Punjai lands comprised in S. No. 407/2-B-2 (equivalent to 2.06.5 hectares) situate in No. 38, Kanjirangudi Village, Ramanathapuram Taluk. He purchased the same along with some other items of land for a valuable consideration from one S.A.M. Liyakath Ali Khan and four others under Ex. A-4/sale deed, dated 2-3-1982, registered as Document No. 271 of 1982 in the Office of the Sub-Registrar of Kilakarai. The plaintiff's vendors delivered possession of the lands to the plaintiff on the date of registration of the sale deed itself. The said lands originally belonged to one S.A.M. Alla Pichai Ambalam (hereinafter referred to as "Pichai Amba-lam"), who died leaving no issues in or about 1967 survived by his two brothers, namely, (1) S.A.M. Mohammed Mustafa and (2) S.A.M. Mohammed Hamid Sultan and his deceased brother S.A.M. Hassan Hussain Pillai's son, Mir Moinudeen, as his heirs and legal representatives to succeed to his estate. According to the plaintiff, eversince the death of Pichai Ambalam, S.A.M. Md. Mustafa, S.A.M. Md. Hamid Sultan and Mir Moinudeen were in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Patta for the lands were also transferred in favour of S.A.M. Md. Mustafa. S.A.M. Hamid Sultan, one of the brothers of Pichai Ambalam died in the year 1973 leaving behind him four sons and one daughter, namely, (1) S.A.M. Liyakath Ali Khan, (2) S.A.M Wappa Sahib Marakayar, (3) S.A.M. Sadakath Abdul Khader, (4) S.A.M. Soukath Abdul Khader and (5) S.A.M. Fahujith Ahamed Nachiya, as his heirs and legal representatives. S.A.M. Syed Hassan Hussain Pillai-pre-deceased his brother Pichai Ambalam leaving behind his son S.A.M. Mir Moinudeen as his sole heir. S.A.M. Md. Mustafa and the children of his two brothers referred to above entered into a deed of partition, i.e. Ex. A-3, dated 25-8-1981. In the said partition. 'B' Schedule properties were allotted to the four sons and one daughter of S.A.M. Md. Hamid Sultan. The suit property is shown as the 15th item in the 'B' Schedule to the partition deed (vide Ex. A-3). The plaintiff, as aforesaid, purchased the said lands from S.A.M. Liyakath Ali Khan and others. Patta for the said lands which originally stood in the name of S.A.M. Md. Mustafa was also transferred in the name of the plaintiff on 18-3-1982, i.e. the date of execution of Ex. A-5/patta and eversince the date of purchase, the plaintiff is paying the land revenue for the suit property and was in enjoyment of the same. Going by the plaint averments, it can be seen that the plaintiff is carrying on business in Hongkong and visits India only occasionally and whenever he visits India, he mostly stays in Madras and spends only a few days in Kilakarai, where the suit property is located. The defendants who were owning lands in S. Nos. 404/4-B and 404/3, which are adjacent to the plaintiff's lands, taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff in India, had illegally encroached upon the entire lands belonging to the plaintiff ad-measuring 5 acres 11 cents in S. No. 407/2-B-2 and annexed the same with the adjacent lands. They also cut and removed Udai trees standing thereon. Accordingly, the plaintiff moved the subordinate Judge's Court, Ramanathapuram in O.S. No. 72 of 1984 for declaration of title and recovery of possesison of the suit property and for damages of Rs. 30, 000/- being the value of the Udai trees cut and removed by the defendants.

3. The defendants






















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top