Back
2014 Supreme(Mad) 3938
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
P. DEVADASS, J.
S. Alphones & other
Versus
M.E. Abbas & Brother, Iron & Steel Merchants, rep. by its Partner A. Sirajudeen & other
S.A. (MD) Nos. 392 & 556 of 2009
Decided On : 03-11-2014
For the Appellants:R. Devaraj, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R2, G.R. Swaminathan, Advocate, R1, 3 & 4, No appearance.
The substance/contents of a document matter more than its title or heading when construing a document.
Headnote:
Construction of Document - Property Dispute - O.S. No. 1394 of 1988, O.S. No. 488 of 1989 - Ex.A.10 - The court analyzed the document Ex.A.10 to determine the ownership of the super structure. The first appellate Court concluded that the super structure exclusively belongs to the plaintiff, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
Fact of the Case:
The respondents filed a suit seeking injunction with respect to a superstructure on a leased site. The defendants claimed ownership of the superstructure, leading to two separate suits. The trial Court dismissed the suits based on the construction of document Ex.A.10, but the first appellate Court concluded in favor of the plaintiff, leading to Second Appeals.
Finding of the Court:
The first appellate Court concluded that the super structure exclusively belongs to the plaintiff, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the ownership of the super structure and the interpretation of document Ex.A.10.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the substance/contents of a document matter more than its title or heading. The proper way of construing a document is to focus on its substance. The first appellate Court carefully analyzed the terms and conditions of Ex.A.10 and correctly found that the super structure belongs to the plaintiff.
Final Decision: Both Second appeals were dismissed, confirming the decree and judgment of the Principal Subordinate Court.
P. DEVADASS, J.
1. In these twin Second Appeals, namely, S.A. (MD) Nos. 392 and 556 of 2009, since the parties are same, factual matrix is same, substantial question of law is same and the arguments are same, we shall render a common judgment.
2. The suit in O.S. No. 1394 of 1988 has been filed by the respondents/plaintiffs, seeking injunction with respect to the superstructure bearing Door No. 24B, measuring 34' x 34' feet, having the assessment No. 17252, put up in the site belonging to one Innasimuthu Pillai. The site has been taken permanently on lease by Innasimuthu Pillai from a temple. Under Innasimuthu Pillai, plaintiff became a tenant with respect to the site. He had put up the super structure thereon. After the demise of Innasimuthu Pillai, his son Soosairaj became the plaintiff's landlord. After the demise of Soosairaj, his wife Alphones (1st Defendant) became the landlady. While so, under some unholistic alliance 1st Defendant created an encumbrance by way of sale deed with respect to plaintiff's super structure in favour of Esabellah (2nd respondent). In the circumstances, alleging that they are interfering with the plaintiff's possession of super structure, plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 1394 of 1998 for injunction.
3. The suit has been resisted by the defendants by filing written statement contending that the superstructure belongs to Innasimuthu Pillai, first defendant succeeded to it by inheritance and in her own right she had sold it to second defendant.
4. Subsequently, the very same Abbas filed O.S. No. 488 of 1989, in which he is the second plaintiff and their firm being the first plaintiff. Almost the suit has been filed on the very same plaint pleadings as in O.S. No. 1394 of 1988 with little but shuttle difference. Now the plaintiffs prayed for declaration as to their title to super structure, pleading that already when plaintiffs faced danger from Innasimuthu Pillai and Soosairaj, they have filed O.S. No. 1930 of 1969 in the Munsif's Court and in the suit they have filed I.A. No. 1528 of 1969. A compromise was entered into between the parties outside the Court in the presence of panchayatars and in the panchayat the title of the plaintiff to the super structure has been acknowledged by Innasimuthu Pillai and Soosairaj and in terms of the said compromise, the said suit was disposed of. Thus, the plaintiff is the owner of the suit super structure. However, Alphones, the widow of Soosairaj sold the plaintiff' superstructure to Esabellah (2nd Defendant) and her son Rajkumar Arokiaraj is 3rd defendant. Further, the fourth defendant, Trichirapalli City Municipal Corporation is taking hectic steps to change the tax entry with respect to the superstructure from plaintiffs to the second defendant. Thus, the suit is a comprehensive suit.
5. The suit has been resisted by defendants 1 to 3 jointly reiterating the plea made in the written statement filed in the earlier suit in O.S. No. 1394 of 1988. The fourth defendant, namely, the Trichirappalli Municipality filed a separate written statement pleading that it is not aware of the interse dispute between the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3. It has also stated that it will abide by the decision of the Court.
6. In both the suits issues were framed. They were tried separately. Oral and documentary evidence were adduced. The compromise entered into between the plaintiff and 1st defendant's predecessor-in-title in O.S. No. 1930 of 1969 assumed signal importance in this case. In O.S. No. 1394 of 1988, it has been marked as Ex.A.10 and its xerox has been marked as Ex.A.19 in O.S. No. 488 of 1989. Ex.A.10 has been the focal point for both sides.
7. It is a clear case of construction of a document, namely, Ex.A.10. The trial Court gave importance to the word "Tamil" in Ex.A.10 and concluded that it indicates that the super structure does not exclusively belongs to the plaintiff and thus both the suits were came to be dismissed.
8. In the circumstances, pla
