2018 Supreme(Mad) 2249

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V.M. VELUMANI, J.
R. Chandra Gupta & Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
V. Mehanathan & Ors. - Respondents
S.A. Nos. 788 to 791 of 2017 and Cross Objection Nos. 11 to 14 of 2018 and C.M.P. Nos. 19759 to 19766 of 2017
Decided On : 21-08-2018

Headnote:

The plaintiffs filed suits for declaration of title, permanent injunctions and mandatory injunctions. The defendants did not appear before the Court during trial and did not give any evidence. Their Power of Attorney, one Veeraraghavan was examined as D.W.1 and gave evidence on behalf of the defendants. The Power of Attorney deposed with regard to the facts which were not in his personal knowledge. He also admitted the said fact in his cross examination. The Courts below did not accept the evidence of said Power of Attorney. The learned I Appellate Judge has extracted the evidence of D.W.1 in the cross examination, wherein he admitted that he is giving evidence based on the information received from the defendants. The learned I Appellate Judge in view of the same, has held that the evidence of D.W.1 is not acceptable and the learned I Appellate Judge did not rely on the evidence of D.W.1 while allowing the appeals.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs filed suits for declaration of title, permanent injunctions and mandatory injunctions. The defendants did not appear before the Court during trial and did not give any evidence. Their Power of Attorney, one Veeraraghavan was examined as D.W.1 and gave evidence on behalf of the defendants. The Power of Attorney deposed with regard to the facts which were not in his personal knowledge. He also admitted the said fact in his cross examination. The Courts below did not accept the evidence of said Power of Attorney. The learned I Appellate Judge has extracted the evidence of D.W.1 in the cross examination, wherein he admitted that he is giving evidence based on the information received from the defendants. The learned I Appellate Judge in view of the same, has held that the evidence of D.W.1 is not acceptable and the learned I Appellate Judge did not rely on the evidence of D.W.1 while allowing the appeals.

Finding of the Court:

The learned I Appellate Judge has considered the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence let in by the plaintiffs and the documents produced and marked by the defendants and held that plaintiffs have not proved their case that they are owners of the suit properties. The learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs in Second Appeals repeatedly vehemently contended that defendants 1 to 10 and 13 to 17 have not got into witness box to give evidence and evidence of D.W.1, their Power of Attorney is not acceptable and learned I Appellate Judge erred in relying on the evidence of D.W.1 and erroneously allowed the First Appeals filed by the defendants 1 to 10 and 13 to 17. The said contention is contrary to the reasoning of the learned I Appellate Judge in paragraph No.81 of the judgment in the first appeals, wherein he has categorically held that Power of Attorney can represent the defendants 1 to 10 and 13 to 17, but he has no right to depose on behalf of the defendants 1 to 10 and 13 to 17 with regard to any oral evidence about the facts not personally known to him. After holding so, the learned I Appellate Judge has held in the said paragraph that plaintiffs can succeed or fail on the strength of their own case and not on the weakness of the defendant's case. In view of the above facts, the Substantial Question of Law A is answered against the appellants.

Issues: Whether the judgment and decree rendered by the first appellate Court in dismissing the suit based upon the evidence of the Power of Attorney/Third Party whose bona-fides are found against by the trial Court, who has resorted to adduce evidence in the suit proceedings in respect of matters totally beyond the knowledge of the said power of attorney is sustainable in law in the light of all the contesting respondents herein have not chosen to enter the witness box being rightly considered by the trial Court is sustainable in law?

Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiffs have failed to prove their title by acceptable oral and documentary evidence. Even though the defendants have not appeared before the Trial Court and let in evidence, they have produced documents to disprove the contention of the plaintiffs with regard to title and proved their contention that their predecessor C. Velu and C. Rathinam were the registered holders and interested persons in the suit properties.

Final Decision: All the Second Appeals are dismissed as devoid of merits. In view of the dismissal of Second Appeals, the defendants are not entitled to any relief as claimed in the Cross Objections. Accordingly, Cross objections are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.