Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 4196
High Court of Judicature at Madras
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
Periyasamy Nadar & Others
Versus
Karupana Nadar (Died) & Others
S.A. No. 424 of 2006
Decided On : 20-12-2013
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:N. Manokaran, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 Died, R2 & R3, A.K. Kumarasamy, Advocate, R4 to R7, No Appearance.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a party to establish their title to the property and the consideration of the presumptive value of a title deed under Section 18 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Headnote:
Property Dispute - Title Deed - Indian Evidence Act - [Section 90, Section 18] - The court discussed the claim of the plaintiffs based on the title deed and their long uninterrupted possession. The defendants presented documents showing their purchase of the property and possession, which the plaintiffs failed to rebut. The court found that the plaintiffs did not establish their title to the suit property and dismissed the suit. The court also noted the presumptive value of the title deed under Section 18 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs claimed ownership of certain lands based on a sale deed and uninterrupted possession, while the defendants disputed their claim and presented documents showing their purchase and possession of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish their title to the suit property and dismissed the suit.
Issues: The issues included the establishment of title based on the sale deed, the plaintiffs' uninterrupted possession, and the defendants' purchase and possession of the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiffs' failure to establish their title and rebut the defendants' evidence led to the dismissal of the suit. The court also considered the presumptive value of the title deed under Section 18 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, confirming the concurrent finding of the Courts below, and the parties were to bear their own costs.
1. Aggrieved by the concurrent finding of the Courts below, the unsuccessful plaintiffs have come up before this Court as appellants.
2. The case of the plaintiffs is that the lands in Survey Nos. 359 to an extent of 12.20 acres, 360 to an extent of 8.25 acres, 374, an extent of 11.72 acres and 376 an extent of 24.57 acres, totalling an extent of 57.60 belong to S.M.RamasamyGounder, S.M.Palanisamy Gounder, T.S.Hanumantha Rao and one Karuppa Nadar jointly under Ex.A.1 sale deed dated 26.8.1937. The said Hanumantha Rao sold the properties in favour of Karuppa Moopan, Vanji Moopan and Ammasai. Karuppa Moopan had a son by name, Rama Nadar, whose sons are the plaintiffs 1 and 2. The third plaintiff is the son of Vanji Moopan. After the death of Karuppa Moopan and Vanji Moopan, the plaintiffs have been in possession of the suit property without any interruption. Out of the total extent of 57.60 acres as stated above, the plaintiffs were in possession 4.20 acres as per Ex.A.1. However, by efflux of time, as on date, the plaintiffs claim only 1.60 acres available in Survey No. 374. While so, it is the case of the plaintiffs that the defendants tried to trespass into the property and object to the plaintiffs to sell the property. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title.
3. The case of the defendants is that the properties in survey Nos. 359, 360,376 and 374 did not belong only to the persons mentioned by the plaintiffs but also to several other persons. The defendants also disputed that the plaintiffs were not the only heirs of Rama Nadar, the son of Karuppa Moopan. The said Rama Nadar also had female heirs, who have not been made as parties to the suit. The defendants have purchased the property from one Marakkal, wife of Kali Moopan, under Ex.B.1 dated 02.6.1938. The defendants’ family had sold away all the properties in the other Survey Nos. and retained only the property in Survey No.374. The defendants had also obtained patta in their name for Survey No. 374 as per Ex.B.4 and the defendants are also paying the tax. Further, the defendants have contended that the plaintiffs are aware of the fact that only the defendants are entitled to Survey No. 379 and the plaintiffs have got no right in thesame. While so, the claim of the defendants that they are the owners of the property in Survey No. 374 and for injunction against these defendants is not maintainable.
4. Based on the allegations in the pleadings, the trial Court had framed issues and decided on the question of declaration of title and for injunction. After considering the documents and evidence, the trial Court as well as the first Appellate Court had dismissed the suit as the plaintiffs had not established their title for Survey No. 374. Hence, the present Second Appeal again at the instance of the plaintiffs.
5. At the time of admitting the Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed for consideration:-
(i) Whether the Courts below have committed an error in law and misdirected themselves in negativing the relief in its entirety even though there is no contra evidence to disprove the claim of the appellants made under Ex.A.1 dated 26.8.1937 especially when it is a document of presumptive value as per Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act?
(ii) Whether the judgment of the first appellate Court is defective for non-compliance of the mandatory provision of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC?
(iii) Whether the Courts below are correct in law, in refusing the relief even without discussing the probative value of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the defendants?
6. Heard Mr. N. Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. A.K.Kumarasamy, learned counsel for the Respondents 2 and 3 and perused the records.
7. Besides claiming right under the title, the plaintiffs have averred in the plaint that they are entitled to the suit property by way of their long uninterrupted continuous possession. However, P.W.1 in his evidenc
