Back
2011 (5) MLJ 640
High Court of Judicature at Madras
G. RAJASURIA
Mrs. Suseela & Others
Versus
P.M. Veeraragavan & Others
S.A.Nos.896 to 899 of 2007 & M.P.No.1 of 2007 (in all the SAs)
Decided on : 31-03-2011
The court dismissed the second appeals filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.Nos.547 of 1993 and 486 of 1995, and the defendant in O.S.No.485 of 1995, challenging the common judgment and decrees of the lower appellate court, which upheld the trial court's dismissal of their suits and granted the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.485 of 1995. The court held that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.485 of 1995 were the rightful owners of the suit property, which was sold to them under Ex.A2, and that the plaintiffs in O.S.Nos.547 of 1993 and 486 of 1995 had no title to the property. The court found that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.547 of 1993 had failed to prove that the power of attorney granted to Umapathi was invalid or that Gopal Naicker had colluded with the staff of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to change the survey number of the property. The court also held that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.485 of 1995 were not required to file a suit for declaration of title since their title was challenged by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.547 of 1993, and that the lower courts had correctly applied the law and the burden of proof in deciding the case.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs in O.S.No.547 of 1993 (appellants) claimed ownership of the suit property and sought a declaration of title, possession, and removal of encroachments. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.485 of 1995 (respondents) sought a permanent injunction restraining the appellants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of their respective plots in the suit property. The defendant in O.S.No.485 of 1995 (appellant) was the alleged agreement holder who claimed to have purchased the suit property from the appellants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.485 of 1995 were the rightful owners of the suit property, which was sold to them under Ex.A2, and that the plaintiffs in O.S.Nos.547 of 1993 and 486 of 1995 had no title to the property. The court held that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.547 of 1993 had failed to prove that the power of attorney granted to Umapathi was invalid or that Gopal Naicker had colluded with the staff of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to change the survey number of the property. The court also held that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.485 of 1995 were not required to file a suit for declaration of title since their title was challenged by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.547 of 1993, and that the lower courts had correctly applied the law and the burden of proof in deciding the case.
Issues: 1. Whether the power of attorney granted to Umapathi was invalid? 2. Whether Gopal Naicker colluded with the staff of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to change the survey number of the property? 3. Whether the plaintiffs in O.S.No.485 of 1995 were required to file a suit for declaration of title? 4. Whether the lower courts correctly applied the law and the burden of proof in deciding the case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.547 of 1993 had failed to prove that the power of attorney granted to Umapathi was invalid. The court noted that there was no evidence to indicate that Umapathi had died before executing the sale deeds, and that a stray sentence in the deposition of one of the witnesses should not be read in isolation. 2. The court held that there was no evidence to indicate that Gopal Naicker had colluded with the staff of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to change the survey number of the property. The court noted that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.547 of 1993 had failed to produce any evidence to support their allegation. 3. The court held that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.485 of 1995 were not required to file a suit for declaration of title since their title was challenged by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.547 of 1993. The court noted that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.547 of 1993 had sought a declaration of title in their suit, and that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.485 of 1995 were entitled to rely on that claim. 4. The court held that the lower courts had correctly applied the law and the burden of proof in deciding the case. The court noted that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.547 of 1993 had failed to discharge the burden of proving their case, and that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.485 of 1995 had proved their case on a balance of probabilities.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the second appeals filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.Nos.547 of 1993 and 486 of 1995, and the defendant in O.S.No.485 of 1995, challenging the common judgment and decrees of the lower appellate court, which upheld the trial court's dismissal of their suits and granted the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.485 of 1995.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:
The court found that the plaintiffs in O.S. No.485 of 1995 were not required to file a suit for declaration of title because their ownership was challenged by the plaintiffs in O.S. No.547 of 1993. The lower courts correctly applied the law and burden of proof in their decisions (!) (!) .
The court upheld the validity of the sale deed (Ex.A2) and concluded that the land in S.No.147/2 was sold by the legal heirs of Gopal Chettiar, not Gopal Naicker, who was the owner of S.No.147/1 and had already been acquired by the government. The alleged mistake in the survey number was deemed a misdescription that did not affect the identity of the property sold (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The court determined that the power of attorney granted to Umapathi was valid and not invalidated by evidence suggesting the principal's death prior to the sale (!) (!) (!) .
Allegations of collusion between Gopal Naicker and the Tamil Nadu Housing Board to alter survey numbers were dismissed due to lack of supporting evidence (!) (!) (!) .
The land acquisition proceedings and related notifications clearly indicated the ownership and survey numbers, supporting the conclusion that the land in question was correctly identified and that the sale was of the land in S.No.147/2, despite some discrepancies in survey number notation (!) (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that misdescription or clerical errors in documents such as sale deeds or survey references do not necessarily vitiate the transaction, provided the true identity of the property can be ascertained from the surrounding evidence (!) (!) (!) .
The evidence on record, including oral testimony and documentary proof, was properly appreciated, and the courts below correctly concluded that the plaintiffs in O.S. No.485 of 1995 had established their ownership and possession rights, while the plaintiffs in O.S. No.547 of 1993 and 486 of 1995 lacked title (!) (!) (!) .
The court dismissed the second appeals, affirming the judgments of the lower courts, and clarified that the legal and factual findings were sound and based on a proper interpretation of evidence (!) (!) (!) .
It was also held that the non-examination of certain witnesses or parties did not adversely affect the outcome, especially when documentary evidence was sufficient to establish the facts (!) (!) .
The court reinforced that fraud, misrepresentation, or collusion must be supported by concrete evidence; otherwise, claims based on such allegations are not sustainable (!) (!) (!) .
In summary, the court's decision centered on the correctness of the identification of the property, the validity of the sale deed, the proper application of legal principles regarding misdescription and documentary interpretation, and the sufficiency of evidence to establish ownership and possession, leading to the dismissal of the second appeals.
1. S.A.No.896 of 2007 and S.A.No.898 of 2007 were filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.547 of 1993 and O.S.No.486 of 1995, respectively, and S.A.No.897 of 2007 was filed by the defendants in O.S.No.485 of 1995, inveighing the common judgment and decrees dated 15.9.2006 passed by the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu, in A.S.Nos.96, 98 and 97 of 2004 confirming the common judgment and decrees dated 20.1.2004 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, in O.S.Nos.547 of 1993, 486 and 485 of 1995, respectively, which were filed for declaration and for recovery of possession.
2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to here under according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.
3. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these second appeals would run thus:
(a) The following three suits emerged seeking various reliefs, which are extracted hereunder:
O.S.No.547 of 1993 (S.A.No.896 of 2007):
"a. To declare that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit property;
b. to direct the defendants to quit and deliver vacant possession of the suit property after removing the superstructure if any, put up by them; and
c. for cost of the suit."
(extracted as such)
O.S.No.485 of 1995 (S.A.No.897 of 2007):
"a. to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, relatives and any person claiming or acting under them from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of their respective plots comprised in S.No.147/2 instead of 147/1 described in the schedule hereunder;
b. to grant permanent injunction restraining the defendants from transferring, alienating, encumbering in any other manner bringing any cloud on the plaintiffs respective title in respect of the suit plots comprised in S.No.147/2 instead of 147/1 under the guise of difference in Survey Number; and
c. for cost of the suit."
O.S.No.486 of 1993 (S.A.No.898 of 2007):
"a. to grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants, relatives or anybody claiming under them not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property; and
b. for cost of the suit." (extracted as such)
(b) Written statements were filed by the respective defendants resisting the suits.
(c) Whereupon issues were framed. Joint trial was conducted in respect of the three suits. On the plaintiffs' side the plaintiff in O.S.No.486 of 1995 examined himself as P.W.2 along with one M.Krishnan-the husband of P4-Suseela in O.S.No.547 of 1993 as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A17 were marked. On the defendants' side, the first and fourth defendants in O.S.No.547 of 1993 examined themselves as D.W.1 and D.W.2 along with one Venkatesan-the Revenue Inspector of Tamil Nadu Housing Board as D.W.3 and Exs.B1 to B28 were marked. Exs.C1 to C4 were marked as Court documents. Ex.X1 was marked as 3rd party document.
(d) Ultimately, by a common judgment, the trial Court decreed the suit O.S.No.485 of 1985 and dismissed the suits O.S.Nos.547 of 1993 and 486 of 1995.
(e) Aggrieved by the common judgment and decree of the trial Court in O.S.485 of 1985, granting the reliefs in favour of the plaintiffs therein, the defendants filed the A.S.No.96 of 2004 and as against the dismissal decrees in O.S.Nos.547 of 1993 and 486 of 1995, the plaintiffs therein filed the A.S.Nos.98 and 99 of 2004.
(f) By a common judgment, the first appellate Court dismissed all the appeals, confirming the common judgment and decrees of the trial Court.
4. Inveighing the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, these three second appeals have been filed more or less on the same grounds and also suggesting the following substantial questions of law:
"A. Whether the Courts below are justified in not considering that Power of Attorney made in favour of Mr.Umapathi was invalid and not in force, since even before the date of sale of the suit property by the owner o
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
