Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 916
High Court of Judicature at Madras
M. DURAISWAMY, J.
C.M.T. Govindarajan (Deceased) & Others
Versus
S. Padmavathi & Others
S.A. No. 1101 of 2009 & M.P. Nos. 1 of 2009 & 1 of 2012
Decided On : 25-04-2014
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants:V. Raghupathi, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1 to R6 & R10 to R13, V.R. Karthikeyan, Saraswathi Sivaraman Iyer, R8 & R9, Government Advocate (CS), R7, died (steps taken)
The central legal point established in the judgment is the binding nature of an admitted fact, the supremacy of a Civil Court decree over patta, and the admissibility of additional evidence at the appellate stage if it pertains to an admitted fact.
Headnote:
Adoption - Property Dispute - Inams Estate (abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1963 - [Inams Estate (abolition and conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1963] - [Section 16 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act] - The court discussed the issue of adoption and its legal implications, the validity of patta granted by the Settlement Officer, and the binding nature of the Civil Court decree over patta. The court also considered the admissibility of additional evidence at the appellate stage and the necessity of proving an admitted fact. The judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court were set aside, and the judgment and decree of the trial Court were restored.
Fact of the Case:
The suit involved a property dispute where the plaintiffs sought to establish their ownership and restrain the defendants from interfering with their possession. The plaintiffs claimed ownership based on their lineage and adoption, while the defendants asserted their rights through patta and possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower Appellate Court erred in considering the issue of adoption, which was an admitted fact, and in giving undue weight to the patta granted by the Settlement Officer. The court also held that the defendants' possession and patta did not supersede the Civil Court decree, and their encumbrances on the property were invalid.
Issues: The issues included the validity of adoption, the binding nature of patta granted by the Settlement Officer, the admissibility of additional evidence at the appellate stage, and the necessity of proving an admitted fact.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that an admitted fact need not be proved, and the lower Appellate Court erred in considering the issue of adoption. The court also clarified that the patta granted by the Settlement Officer could not supersede the Civil Court decree, and additional evidence could be admitted if it pertained to an admitted fact.
Final Decision: The judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court were set aside, and the judgment and decree of the trial Court were restored. The Second Appeal was allowed with no costs.
1. The above appeal arises against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.21 of 2007 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kanchipuram, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.814 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kanchipuram. The appellants are the legal representatives of the deceased first plaintiff. The respondents 1 to 9 were the defendants in the suit, respondents 10 to 13 were brought on record as the legal representatives of the deceased seventh respondent.
2. The plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S.No.814 of 1998 to declare that they are the absolute owners of the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property; to declare the Document No.1573/98 as illegal, invalid and not binding upon them and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the same; to declare the Document No.1610/98 as illegal, invalid and not binding upon the plaintiffs and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from enforcing the same and for other reliefs.
3. The brief case of the plaintiffs are as follows:
"(i) According to the plaintiffs, the suit property originally belonged to Ramasamy Mudaliar, who died intestate, leaving behind two sons viz., Nagularaja Mudaliar and Thiruvengadasamy Mudaliar. The said Nagularaja Mudaliar died intestate, leaving behind two sons viz., Beemaraya Mudaliar and Kannappa Mudaliar. Ramasamy Mudaliar was enjoying 'B' Block lands in Karaipettai Village and on his death, his sons became entitled to half share each. The first plaintiff is the adopted son of Thiruvengadasamy Mudaliar and on the death of Thiruvengadasamy Mudaliar, the first plaintiff succeeded to his half share. Nagularaja Mudaliar's half share devolved upon his two sons viz., Beemaraya Mudaliar and Kannappa Mudaliar and each of them was entitled to one-fourth share. As per the Will dated 29.05.1970, executed by Kannappa Mudaliar, his one-fourth share was bequeathed in favour of C.M.K.Soundararajan. On the death of C.M.K.Soundararajan , his share devolved upon the defendants 1 to 4.
(ii) The plaintiffs were the Pattadars in respect of Survey No.364/2. As per the registered Partition Deed dated 12.11.1930 between Beemaraya Mudaliar and Kannappa Mudaliar, an extent of 2.05 = acres was allotted to Kannappa Mudaliar. C.M.K.Soundararajan claimed patta before the Settlement Officer pursuant to the Partition Deed dated 12.11.1930 for an extent of 2.05 = acres. The Settlement Officer assigned new Survey No.365/1 and granted patta in his favour. By mistake, C.M.K.Soundararajan's name was also included in Survey No.364/2, which was corresponding to Paimash Nos.35/B(P) and 36/B(P). The settlement proceedings was not conducted properly. In spite of the wrong order, during the life time of Soundararajan, he never claimed any right, title or interest or possession in Survey No.364/2. He claimed patta only for Survey No.35/B(P) measuring an extent of 2.05 = acres. In O.S.No.39 of 1970 on the file of the Sub Court, Chengalpattu, Thiruvengadasamy Mudaliar got 105.40 acres.
(iii) As per the Adoption Deed No.53/1944, the first plaintiff was taken in adoption by Thiruvengadasamy Mudaliar's wife Jagannathammal. Hence, the first plaintiff got 5.98 = acres in Survey No.36/B under 'C' Schedule of the Koorchit dated 15.02.1966. The second plaintiff became entitled to 2.05 = acres in Survey No.35/B, New No.364/2, therefore, the plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit property. The sub division as Survey Nos.364/2A and 364/2B were effected as early as in the year 1975. The plaintiffs were granted patta in these two sub divided Survey Numbers. However, the defendants 1 to 4, without any manner of right, title, interest or possession, in collusion with the sixth defendant created a Mortgage Deed dated 21.08.1998 alleging that they are entitled to half share and another Mortgage Deed dated 28.08.199
