Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 3454
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBBIAH
Sumathi & Another
Versus
Unnamalai
Second Appeal No. 99 of 2002
Decided On : 13-08-2010
For the Appellant :G. Rajan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R. Bharanidharan, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of specific measurements in property disputes to determine ownership and possession. The court emphasized the need for accurate measurements to decide the extent of the disputed portion and influence the final decision.
Headnote:
Property Dispute - Survey Numbers - [Survey No.191/1, Survey No.191/3] - The court discussed the ownership and possession of the properties situated in Survey No.191/1 and Survey No.191/3. The appellants claimed ownership of the property in Survey No.191/1, while the respondent claimed ownership of the property in Survey No.191/3. The court considered the Advocate Commissioner's report and the Surveyor's report, but found that specific measurements of the disputed portion were not taken, leading to the inability to decide whether the vacant site fell within the extent of the appellants' property. The lower appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court in respect of the prayer for declaration, but modified the prayer of injunction, prohibiting the respondent from interfering with the appellants' use and utilization of the vacant space as a lane.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed a suit for declaration of title to the suit property and for permanent injunction against the respondent. The dispute arose from conflicting claims of ownership and possession of properties situated in Survey No.191/1 and Survey No.191/3. The trial Court decreed the suit, but the lower appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that specific measurements of the disputed portion were not taken, leading to the inability to decide whether the vacant site fell within the extent of the appellants' property. The lower appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court in respect of the prayer for declaration, but modified the prayer of injunction, prohibiting the respondent from interfering with the appellants' use and utilization of the vacant space as a lane.
Issues: The main issue was the conflicting claims of ownership and possession of properties situated in Survey No.191/1 and Survey No.191/3. The court also considered the reliance on the Advocate Commissioner's report and the Surveyor's report, and the absence of specific measurements of the disputed portion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the absence of specific measurements of the disputed portion, leading to the inability to decide whether the vacant site fell within the extent of the appellants' property. The lower appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court in respect of the prayer for declaration, but modified the prayer of injunction, prohibiting the respondent from interfering with the appellants' use and utilization of the vacant space as a lane.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
1. This appeal is filed as against the decree and judgment dated 16.11.2001 made in A.S.No.128 of 2000 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Thiruvannamalai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 04.09.2000 made in O.S.No.281 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrate, Chengam.
2. The plaintiffs are the appellants and the defendant is the respondent herein.
3. The appellants have filed the suit in O.S.No.281 of 1996 before the District Munsif-Cum-Judicial Magistrates Court, Chengam for declaration declaring the plaintiffs title to the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the respondent herein from interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The said suit was decreed by the Trial Court, but the lower appellate Court has set aside the decree and judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the suit.
4. The facts, which are narrated by the appellants in the plaint, are as follows:-
Originally the suit scheduled property and other sites belonged to one Kannaiya Naidu son of Permal Naidu of Thanipadi Village. The said Kannaiya Naidu purchased the same from the previous owners viz., Poongavana Chettiyar and Periyapappammal respectively. The said Kannaiya Naidu, subsequently sold the property in favour of one Chandran and his first wife viz., Malarkodi. The first appellant is the second wife of the said Chandran and the second appellant is the minor daughter. The suit property along with other site was purchased by Chandran and Malarkodi, for a sale consideration of Rs.3,200/- under a registered sale deed dated 25.07.1979. The said Chandran and his wife were each entitled to a half share in the said property. Subsequently, the said Chandran sold his undivided half share in the said site for Rs.1,750/- in favour of his brother viz., Veerabathiran under a registered sale deed dated 12.11.1979. The said Veerabathiran and Malarkodi had been jointly enjoying the said property. Subsequently, the said Chandran had divorced his wife Malarkodi and thereafter he had purchased the undivided half share in the said site from the said Malarkodi for a sum of Rs.2,100/-. That apart, the said Chandran had also purchased the undivided half share in the said site from his brother Veerabathiran for a sum of Rs.2,000/-under a Registered sale deed dated 19.07.1985. Thus the said Chandran became the absolute owner of the suit scheduled properties and other properties totally measuring east to west 38 feet on the southern side, 28 feet on the northern side and north south 53 feet on the eastern side and 43 feet on the western side. Subsequently, the said Chandran married the first appellant/first plaintiff in the year 1984 and out of the lawful wed-lock the first appellant/first plaintiff gave birth to the second appellant/second plaintiff. The said Chandran by way of a settlement deed dated 11.11.1986 settled the schedule mentioned property and other sites in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs. By virtue of the said settlement deed, the appellants/plaintiffs are the absolute owner of the suit property along with other site. Out of the said site, the said Chandran leased out 450 sq.ft. in favour of one Jayaraman for a period of five years. The leased out portion of 450 sq.ft. is in the northern portion of the suit scheduled property. As per the condition of the said lease deed, the lessees had to construct a tiled building on the demised site from out of their own funds and carry on his commission mundy business there and after the expiry of the lease period, they must remove the super structure and hand over the vacant possession of the demised site to the owner. The lessees constructed a tiled building on the northern portion of the demised site, leaving the northern portion, measuring to an extent of 4 feet north to south and 28 feet east to west as vacant site, totalling to an extent of 1584 sq.ft. It is the further case of the appellants/ plaintiffs that
