Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 2498
High Court of Judicature at Madras
G. RAJASURIA, J.
Vanaja
Versus
Chinnathambi @ Arunachalampillai
S.A. No. 1037 of 2011 & M.P. No. 1 of 2011
Decided On : 18-07-2013
For the Appellant:N. Jothi for N. Ponraj, Advocates.
For the Respondent:S.V. Jayaraman, Senior Counsel for M/s. Govi Ganesan, Advocate.
The application of the principle of res judicata, admissibility and proof of documents, adherence to procedural rules, and proper pleadings and description of property are crucial in property disputes.
Headnote:
res judicata - Property Dispute - O.S.No.316 of 1996 - S. 259/2 - Ex.A2, Ex.B16, Ex.B4 - Order 41 Rule 31 CPC
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking declaration of ownership and injunction over a property. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the appellate court reversed the decision. The defendant appealed, raising substantial questions of law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the principle of res judicata only applied to specific points, upheld the validity of Ex.A2, noted the appellate court's failure to adhere to Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, and highlighted improper pleadings and mis-description of the property in the plaint.
Issues: Validity of settlement deed, possession of the suit property, entitlement to relief, res judicata, admissibility and proof of documents, reasoning of the trial court, decreeing the suit based on Ex.A2, ignoring improper pleadings and mis-description of property
Ratio Decidendi: The principle of res judicata applied to specific points, Ex.A2 was upheld as an admitted document, the appellate court failed to adhere to Order 41 Rule 31 CPC, and the improper pleadings and mis-description of the property were not considered.
Final Decision: The judgments and decrees of both the Courts below were set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the trial Court for disposal purely on merits within six months.
1. This Second Appeal is focussed animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 04.03.2011 passed in A.S.No.7 of 2010 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari at Salem in reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.316 of 1996 dated 10.08.2009 by the learned District Munsif Court, Sankari.
2. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.
3. Broadly but briefly, narratively but precisely, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal, would run thus:
(a) The plaintiff namely Chinnathambi @ Arunachalampillai, filed the suit as against the defendant/Vanaja, seeking the relief of declaration that he is the absolute owner of the property found described in the schedule of the plaint and also for injunction, so as to restrain the defendant from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
(b) The gist and kernel of the averments in the plaint would run thus:
One Alagammal who had no descendants of her own, allotted orally her immovable properties in favour of her uncle's sons namely, Suriakanthampillai, Chinnaiyapillai, Bangarusamy Pillai, Arunagiri, Sivaji, Rajaram, Uthampillai and the plaintiff. Accordingly, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as well as other properties. While so, out of the total extent of the suit property, on the southern portion, nine cents were sold to Tulasi Pillai's mother and to Thulasi Pillai, vide the sale deed dated 16.02.1958. Thereafter, the original owner of the immovable property, viz., the said Alagammal executed the settlement deed dated 09.07.1967, allotting the properties which were already under the enjoyment of Alagammal's counsin's sons. As such, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit property described in the schedule of the plaint. Thereafter, the said Thulasi Pillai who became the owner of an extent of land under the sale deed dated 16.02.1958, sold that property to the defendant during the year 1981. During the year 1992, the defendant unduly attempted to trespass into the suit property. Hence this suit.
(c) Per contra, challenging and refuting the averments/ allegations in the plaint, the defendant filed the written statement, the warp and woof of the same would run thus:
The said settlement deed dated 09.07.1967 referred to in the plaint is invalid and ineffective and was not acted upon at any time and the description of the property shown in the settlement deed is incorrect. It is true that the defendant purchased the property from Thulasi Pillai but not as plaintiff portrayed in the plaint. The plaintiff is not in possession of the suit property. The defendant purchased the properties in S.No.259/2 at Ernapuram village, under two registered sale deeds dated 18.11.1981 and 09.05.1984. Those two items are assigned the S.No.259/3. There is no such property as described in the schedule of the plaint. Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
(d) The trial Court formulated the following issues and additional issues:
"(1) Whether it is true that the suit property absolutely belongs to the plaintiff?
(2) Whether the settlement deed dated 09.07.1967 alleged to be executed by one Alagammal is valid?
(3) Whether it is true that the suit property is under the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff?
(4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and consequential perpetual injunction as prayed for?
(5) To what other relief, the plaintiff is entitled to?"
ADDITIONAL ISSUE FRAMED ON 19.03.2001:
"1. Whether the suit has been properly valued?"
ANOTHER ADDITIONAL ISSUE FRAMED ON 28.07.2003
"1. Whether the present suit is hit by the principal of Resjudicata, in view of the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.59/1960?" (extracted as such)
(e) Up went the trial, during which the plaintiff/Chinnathambi (alias) Arunachalam examined himself as P.W.1 along with P.W.2/Manickam and Exs.A1
