Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 877
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
M. SUNDAR, J.
Chinnan & Others - Appellant
Versus
Sangan (died) & Others - Respondent
S.A. No. 871 of 2002
Decided On : 18-04-2018
For the Appellants :S. Ramesh, Advocate.
For the Respondents:S. Natarajan, Advocate.
Headnote:
vacant site - Succession - [Evidence Act, Section 32(5); AIR 1983 SC 684; 1996 (II) CTC 199] - The court discussed the succession of a vacant site and the burden of proof on the plaintiffs to establish their title. The court analyzed the genealogy and the relevance of various sale deeds in determining the succession. The court also highlighted the legal principle that plaintiffs must succeed on the strength of their title and cannot rely on the defendant's lack of title. The judgment confirmed the dismissal of the suit, emphasizing that the plaintiffs failed to establish their title to the vacant site.
Fact of the Case:
The litigation commenced in 1996 when a suit was filed for declaration of title and injunction regarding a vacant site. The trial court and first appellate court dismissed the suit, leading to the second appeal. The central issue was the succession of the vacant site, with the plaintiffs claiming title by succession and the defendant asserting title based on a sale deed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish their title to the vacant site by succession. The court also concluded that the plaintiffs could not rely on the defendant's lack of title to succeed in the case. The court confirmed the dismissal of the suit by the lower courts.
Issues: The main issue was the succession of the vacant site, specifically whether one of the heirs predeceased the other and the implications of various sale deeds on the succession.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the plaintiffs must succeed on the strength of their title and cannot rely on the defendant's lack of title. The court also highlighted the burden of proof on the plaintiffs to establish their title to the vacant site by succession.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, confirming the judgments of the trial court and first appellate court, and leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.
1. This litigation commenced more than two decades ago, to be precise on 06.08.1996 when one Chinnan along with his son and three daughters launched a suit against one Sangan (since deceased) regarding a vacant site admeasuring 2160 square feet or thereabouts.
2. A thumbnail sketch of facts absolutely essential for appreciating this judgment is set out infra under the caption 'Factual matrix in a nutshell'. To be noted, 'Factual matrix in a nutshell' contains only facts which are imperative for understanding and appreciating this judgment sans other particulars and details.
3. Facts in a Nutshell :
3(a) Suit property is a vacant site admeasuring 2160 square feet or thereabouts. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit being No.306 of 1996 on the file of District Munsif Court, Aruppukkottai and the said court shall hereinafter be referred to as 'trial court' for the sake of convenience and clarity. From the description in the decree of the trial court, it can be culled out that the suit property is a rectangular piece of vacant site admeasuring 20 yards lengthwise (North to South) and 12 yards breadthwise (East to West).
3(b) Both learned counsel before me submit in unison without disagreement that 1 yard is 3 feet. Therefore, the suit property measures 60 feet lengthwise and 36 feet breadthwise and as mentioned supra, it is a rectangular piece of land.
3(c) It further unfurls from the description of the suit property in the trial court decree that Northern boundary of the suit property is a vacant site owned by the first plaintiff Chinnan, Southern and Eastern boundaries are properties belonging to one Palpandi and Western boundary is a street.
3(d) Considering that the suit property is 36 feet breadth and 60 feet lengthwise, I have mentioned supra that the suit property admeasures 2160 square feet or thereabouts.
3(e) As set out supra, it is a vacant piece of land/vacant site and it shall hereinafter be referred to as 'suit property' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity.
3(f) As mentioned supra, way back on 06.08.1996, one Chinnan along with his son and three daughters launched a suit being O.S.No.306 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Aruppukkottai against one Sangan qua suit property.
3(g) Prayer in the trial court qua suit property was for declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction against the defendant restraining the defendant from interfering with plaintiffs' possession of the suit property. Besides declaration of title and permanent injunction qua possession, there is a prayer for cost and the usual residuary prayer.
3(h) There was full contest and trial in the suit. On behalf of plaintiffs, two witnesses, P.W.1 and P.W.2, were examined and 16 exhibits, i.e., Exs.A.1 to A.16 were marked. On behalf of sole defendant, two witnesses, i.e., D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined. On behalf of sole defendant, 4 exhibits, i.e., Exs.B.1 to B.4 were marked.
3(i) After full contest, the trial court by judgment dated 13.7.1999 dismissed the suit inter-alia holding that plaintiffs have not proved their title by discharging the burden of proof cast on them.
3(j) Plaintiffs carried the matter in appeal, by way of regular first appeal suit being A.S.No.126 of 2001 on the file of Sub Judges' Court, Aruppukkottai. Sub Judges' Court, Aruppukkottai shall hereinafter be referred to as 'first appellate court' for the sake of convenience and clarity.
3(k) First appellate court, after full contest, dismissed the appeal in and by a judgment dated 22.02.2002, confirming the dismissal of the suit by the trial court.
3(l) Plaintiffs carried the matter to this court by way of the instant second appeal, i.e., S.A.No.871 of 2002. The instant second appeal was admitted by this court on 14.05.2002 holding that four substantial questions of law arise for consideration (I shall refer to the substantial questions of
