Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 2095
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY
Chandrammal
Versus
Jayarama Naicker
Second Appeal No.561 of 2000
Decided on: 06-07-2009
For the Appellant:S. Sadasivam, Advocate. For the Respondent:T.V. Krishnamachari, Advocate.
The burden of proof in a suit for declaration and injunction lies with the plaintiff, who must produce acceptable evidence to prove title and possession over the property.
Headnote:
Code of Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Section 100 - Suit for declaration and injunction - Summary of Acts and Sections: Code of Civil Procedure, Section 100 - The court discussed the evidence presented by both parties, the relevance of registered documents of title, and the burden of proof in a suit for declaration and injunction.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction claiming absolute ownership and possession of a property. The defendant contested the claim, asserting lawful possession and enjoyment of a larger extent of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court and lower appellate court found that the plaintiff failed to prove title and possession over the property, and the defendant proved possession and enjoyment. The second appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to produce acceptable evidence to prove her case.
Issues: The main issues were the plaintiff's failure to prove title and possession, the relevance of registered documents of title, and the burden of proof in a suit for declaration and injunction.
Ratio Decidendi: The courts below correctly concluded that the appellant failed to prove her case by producing acceptable evidence, and there were no substantial questions of law to interfere with their findings.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure judgment and decree dated 8. 1999 made in A.S.No.111 of 1998 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Maduranthakam confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 24.09.1997 passed in O.S.No.119 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Maduranthakam. The above Second Appeal arises against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.111 of 1998 on the file of Sub Court, Maduranthakam confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.119 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Maduranthakam.
2. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant in the above second appeal. The respondent is the defendant in the suit.
3. The plaintiff filed suit in O.S.No.119 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Maduranthaham for declaration and injunction.
.4. The brief case of the plaintiff is as follows:-
.The plaintiff is the absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property measuring an extent on 0.07 cents. She purchased the property under a registered sale deed dated 21. 1982. Since then, she is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Originally one Balatherasammals mother and one Innaiya Reddiar purchased 0.85 cents in S.No.348/5 under a registered sale deed dated 11. 1950. The plaintiffs vendor Balatherasammal and Innaiya Reddiar entered into an oral partition and a suit property was allotted to Ananthammal. The plaintiffs vendor Balatherasammal got the property from the said Ananthammal through a settlement deed. Since then, her vendor was in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property. The suit property is a part of the property in S.No.348/5 measuring 0.85 cents. The plaintiff stored hayricks in the suit property. The defendant is no way connected with the suit property. He is the utter stranger to the suit property. Since the defendant tried to put up temporary hut in the suit property and also casting cloud over the title of the plaintiff, the plaintiff filed the suit.
.5. The brief case of the defendant is as follows:
.According to the defendant, the plaintiff is not the absolute owner of the suit property. The plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs house is facing west and defendants house is facing east. The schedule mentioned property has been wrongly described as 0.07 cents. The defendant is in lawful possession and enjoyment of a total extent of 0.15 cents. The defendant is living in the said property for more than 20 years. The defendant has been paying the house tax to the Panchayat Board. According to the defendant, the sale deed dated 21. 1992 is a sham document. The boundaries mentioned in the suit schedule are not correct. The suit property is a Gramanatham land. Neither Balatherasammals mother Ananthammal nor Innaiya Reddiar have been in possession of the suit property. Therefore, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.
6. Before the trial court, the plaintiff examined 2 witnesses and marked 3 documents Exs. A1 to A3. On the side of the defendant, 2 witnesses were examined and 10 documents Exs. B1 to B10 were marked.
7. The trial court, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidences of both the parties found that the the plaintiff failed to prove his title and possession over the suit property and also found that the defendant by marking Exs.B1 to B8 proved his possession and enjoyment over the suit property. The trial court dismissed the suit.
8. Aggrieved over the judgment and degree of the trial court, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.NO.111 of 1998 on the file of Sub Court, Maduranthagam.
9. The lower appellate court after taking into consideration the materials available on record also found that the plaintiff failed to prove her title and possession over the suit property, since the property purchased under Ex.A1 is only a Gramanatham and ultimately the lower appellate court confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the
