Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 1396
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
C.S. KARNAN, J.
Foustin Thambi - Appellant
Versus
Tressa & Others - Respondents
CAV ON 068/01 of 2016
Decided On : 03-03-2016
For the Appellant :K.P. Narayanakumar, Advocate
For the Respondents:T. Antony Arul Raj, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the failure of the defendants to establish any semblance of title or possession over the property, and the wrongful decision of the 1st Appellate Court to grant a relief in favor of the defendants by invalidating the sale deed of others.
Headnote:
res-judicata - Property Dispute - Order 20 Rule 18, Order 26 Rule 14(3) - The court analyzed the material facts and legal provisions such as Order 20 Rule 18, Order 26 Rule 14(3) and Section 8 of T.P. Act. The judgment discussed the rights of the parties over the plaint schedule properties, the possession and title of the plaintiff's vendor, and the fraudulent order in E.P.No.67 of 1988. The court found that the defendants failed to establish any semblance of title or possession over the property, and their possession from 03.10.1987 was unlawful. The 1st Appellate Court's decision to grant a relief in favor of the defendants by invalidating the sale deed of others was deemed wrong, and the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court were set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession of a property, claiming absolute ownership based on a sale deed. The defendants raised objections, including the plea of res-judicata, and contested the plaintiff's possession and entitlement to the property. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, but the Lower Appellate Court set aside the judgment and decree. The Second Appeal was filed by the plaintiff against this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendants failed to establish any semblance of title or possession over the property, and their possession from 03.10.1987 was unlawful. The 1st Appellate Court's decision to grant a relief in favor of the defendants by invalidating the sale deed of others was deemed wrong, and the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court were set aside.
Issues: The issues revolved around the plaintiff's entitlement to the property, the defendants' objections including the plea of res-judicata, and the validity of the sale deed. The substantial questions of law raised in the Second Appeal included considerations of the Doctrine preponderance, prohibition, and the Transfer of property right under Section 8 of T.P. Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the analysis of material facts and legal provisions such as Order 20 Rule 18, Order 26 Rule 14(3), and Section 8 of T.P. Act. The court found that the defendants failed to establish any semblance of title or possession over the property, and their possession from 03.10.1987 was unlawful. The 1st Appellate Court's decision to grant a relief in favor of the defendants by invalidating the sale deed of others was deemed wrong, and the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court were set aside.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was allowed, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the II Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurai in O.S. No. 70 of 1998, dated 07.10.2014. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
1. This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the Sub-Judge, Kuzhithurai, dated 13.03.2015 made in A.S. No. 128 of 2014, reversing the judgment and decree of the II Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurai, in O.S. No. 70 of 1998 dated 07.10.2014.
2. The Plaintiff in O.S. No. 70 of 1998 on the file of II Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurai is the appellant herein, the respondents herein are the defendants. The Appellant filed the suit for recovery of possession of the Plaint schedule property.
3. The brief facts in the plaint is as follows :
The Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property which has an extent of 1 Acre 40 Cents comprising 50 cents in Survey No.1631/2 and 90 Cents in Survey No. 1594/2 of Ezhudesom Village. The plaintiff purchased the property from his previous owner Haji Mohammad Meeran as per Sale Deed dated 21.07.1977 registered as Document No.1507 of 1977 of the Kollencode Sub-Registrar’s Office. The plaintiff’s Vendor was entitled to the Plaint schedule property as per sale deeds in Document Nos. 1833 of 1966, 1429 of 1968, as per Release Deed Document No.4909 of 1966 of Kollencode Sub Registrar’s Office and as per the decree passed in O.S. No. 51 of 1966, on the file of the Sub Court, Padmanabapuram. Plaintiff vendor was the third defendant in the said suit. Plaintiff’s vendor had been in absolute possession and enjoyment of plaint schedule property and the coconut trees standing thereon upto the date of absolute possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property since the date of sale in her favour. The patta for the plaint schedule property is in the name of plaintiff. The tax for the plaint schedule property is being paid by the plaintiff. The property having an extent of 90 Cents on the South Eastern side of the plaint schedule property was purchased by one Miss Lilly Thomas from Haji Mohammed Meeran. The said Lilly Thomas is a friend of plaintiff. The plaintiff had constructed compound walls around the plaint schedule property and the property purchased by Lilly Thomas. The said Lilly Thomas had contributed her share for the construction of the compound wall. The plaintiff had planted coconut trees in the plaint schedule property and the trees are yielding. Lilly Thomas has planted coconut trees in her property. The plaintiff had been taking the yield from the property. The first defendant’s husband and father of the other defendants Marianayagam is the 12th defendant in the aforesaid suit, O.S. No. 51 of 1986. Marianayagam had no manner of right interest or possession over the plaint schedule property. He was not entitled to any portion of the plaint schedule property as per the decree passed in O.S. No. 51 of 1996. The said Maria Nayagam tried to trespass into plaint schedule property and tried to create some evidence about his occupation. Plaintiff had given complaints to Police several times about the illegal attempts of the said Mariyanayagam for trespassing into the plaint schedule property. On 03.10.1987, Marianayagam had trespassed into the plaint schedule property with lot of men and unauthorisedly encroached into the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff gave complaint to the Police. The Police hesitated to evict Marianayagam, since he was a very influential person. The plaintiff being a lady, could not resist Marianayagam had absolutely, no right title or possession in the plaint schedule property. So, the plaintiff filed a suit in O.S. No. 717 of 1987 before District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule property from Marianayagam. In the meantime, the said Marianayagam died on 29.10.1990. So, the plaintiff filed an application in I.A. No. 855 of 1991 to implead the defendants who are the legal representatives of Marianayagam as additional defendants 2 to 6. The plaintiff also filed an application before the Court to set aside the abatement order as I.A. No. 857 of 1991. Since the proposed add
