Back
2016 Supreme(Mad) 2943
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.S. SUNDAR, J.
Kumaresan - Appellant
Vs.
A. Kasi - Respondent
S.A.(MD)No.572 of 2016
Decided On : 12-09-2016
For the Appellant : Mr. SP. Kannan.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of res-judicata and the interpretation of Sections 11, 42, and 43 of the Indian Evidence Act in determining the binding nature of a previous judgment on the current case.
Headnote:
Title and Injunction - Indian Evidence Act, Section 11, Section 42, Section 43 - The Judgment discusses the legal provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, particularly Section 11, Section 42, and Section 43, and their application in establishing res-judicata. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of these provisions and their relevance in determining the binding nature of a previous judgment on the current case.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction in respect of a property. The Trial Court held in favor of the respondent, which was upheld by the Lower Appellate Court. The appellant raised several points challenging the findings of the lower courts.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the respondent had proved his title and lawful possession of the property. It also held that the Judgment in a previous suit had become final and would operate as res-judicata. The Court dismissed the Second Appeal.
Issues: The issues included the establishment of title, the admissibility of a previous judgment, and the application of res-judicata.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was based on the finding that the matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit was the same as in the former suit, and the previous suit had been a suit between the same parties. The Court also emphasized the relevance of Sections 11, 42, and 43 of the Indian Evidence Act in establishing res-judicata.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed.
The first defendant in the suit in O.S.No.62 of 2010 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivagangai, is the appellant in the above Second Appeal.
2. The respondent in this appeal filed a suit in O.S.No.62 of 2010 for declaration of title and injunction in respect of the suit property measuring an extent of 45 and s cents in Survey No.157/2 in Azhagichipatti Village, Sivagangai Taluk and Sivagangai District. The respondent has also prayed for setting aside the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.213 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivagangai obtained by the first defendant against the second defendant.
3. Brief facts set out in the plaint filed by the respondent in this case are as follows:-
The suit property originally belonged to one Muthukaruppan Chettiyar and the revenue records, namely, S.L.R indicated the fact regarding the ownership of the suit property by Muthukaruppan Chettiyar. Patta was also issued to him. After the death of Muthukaruppan Chettiyar, the suit property belonged to his son Annamalai Chettiyar and after the death of Annamalai, the suit property belonged to his adopted son Sathya Seelan. The revenue records were also mutated in favour of the adopted son of Annamalai Chettiyar, namely, Sathiya Seelan by proceedings dated 12.12.1994. Since, the said Sathiya Seelan was in enjoyment of the land as lawful owner, he executed a Sale Deed dated 16.10.2003 in respect of an extent of 109 Square feet in favour of a third party. Thereafter, pursuant to negotiation, the respondent purchased the suit property under Sale Deed dated 25.06.2008. Though the defendants have no right, the appellant suppressing the dispute regarding mutation of revenue records pending before R.D.O., filed collusive suit in O.S.No.213 of 2008 and obtained an ex-parte decree so as to make use of the collusive Judgment and Decree as against the respondent, viz., the lawful owner in Patta proceedings. Since the appellant was trying to interfere with the respondent's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, the plaintiff/respondent was constrained to file the present suit.
4. The case of the appellant/first defendant as per the written statement filed by him are as follows:-
The contention of the appellant is that the suit property originally belonged to A.Muthukaruppan Chettiyar and the entry of his name in S.L.R.Register and grant of Patta in favour of Muthukaruppan Chettiyar are denied. The case of the plaintiff is that Annamalai Chettiyar is the son of Muthukaruppan and Sathiya Seelan is the son of Annamalai Chettiyar are also denied. The Sale Deeds and other revenue records were created by the respondent. The son of Muthukaruppan shown as the owner in S.L.R. Register is one Venkatachalam Chettiyar. The said Venkatachalam Chettiyar had a son by name Padhinettam Cheittyar. The son of Padhinettam Chettiyar is one Thirupathy Chettiyar. Hence, the suit property belonged to one Padhinettam Chettiyar and his son Thirupathy Chettiyar. Since, the heirs of the Muthukaruppan Cheittyar executed a Sale Deed in favour of one Chinnandi in the year 1983, the appellant was entitled to title by virtue the Sale Deed obtained from the said Chinnandi in the year 1995. Since the second defendant in the suit tried to interfere with the appellant's peaceful possession, the appellant obtained a decree in O.S.No.213 of 2008 against the second defendant. The Sale Deed obtained by the respondent in the year 2008, after knowing the Sale Deed in favour of the appellant, is illegal. Since Sathya Seelan, the father of the respondent had no right or enjoyment over the suit property, the respondent is not entitled to the declaration or injunction, particularly, when the appellant is in enjoyment of the suit property.
5. The Trial Court framed necessary issues and held that the respondent has proved his title and lawful possession of the suit property. The Trial Court also framed an issue whether the suit decreed in O.S.No.213 of 2008 is a
