Back
2018 Supreme(Mad) 2474
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. RAVINDRAN, J.
Nallamuthu - Appellant
Vs.
Sigamani and Ors. - Respondent
S.A. Nos. 519 & 523 of 2004
Decided On : 19-07-2018
For the Appellant : Mr. V. Chandrakanthan
For the Respondents: Mr. S.N. Amarnath
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the ownership and entitlement to access the suit property were determined based on the layout and settlement deeds, and the property was deemed to be part of Sundarar street, not exclusively owned by the appellant.
Headnote:
Easementary Right - Property Dispute - Ex.A3 - Sundarar street - Ex.A3, Ex.B2 - Ex.A3 settlement deed - Ex.A3, Ex.B2, Ex.A15, Ex.A14, Ex.C1 - Ex.A3 settlement deed, Sundarar street - Ex.B2, patta/assignment - Sundarar street, public purpose - Sundarar street, patta/assignment
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed two suits against the appellant for easementary rights and injunctions. The trial court decreed both suits, which was upheld by the first appellate court. The main issue was the ownership of the suit property, which was found to be part of Sundarar street.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit property was part of Sundarar street and the appellant had no exclusive claim to it. The appellant's attempt to obtain patta/assignment for the property was deemed invalid. The respondent was granted the necessary relief as the property was earmarked for public purpose.
Issues: Ownership of the suit property, validity of patta/assignment, entitlement to access the public street
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit property was part of Sundarar street and the appellant had no exclusive claim to it. The appellant's attempt to obtain patta/assignment for the property was deemed invalid. The respondent was granted the necessary relief as the property was earmarked for public purpose.
Final Decision: The second appeals were dismissed with costs, and the substantial questions of law were answered against the appellant and in favor of the respondent Sigamani.
Second appeal No. 519 of 2004 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2004 passed in A.S.No.102 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Court Vellore confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2003 passed in O.S. No. 616 of 1993 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Vellore.
2. Second appeal No.523 of 2004 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 05.01.2004 passed in A.S.No.71 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Court Vellore confirming the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2003 passed in O.S. No.865 of 1997 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Vellore.
3. Both second appeals have been admitted on the following substantial questions of law :
1. Whether the judgment and decree of the learned Courts is contrary to Ex.A3 settlement deed?
2. Whether the oral evidence can be allowed to let is contrary to registered document Ex.A3?
3. Whether shifting the burden on the defendants to establish his rights over the property is correct without discharging the burden of the plaintiff?
4. Whether Mr. K.Swaminathan who was the original owner of the suit property is not nearby party to decide the title of the suit property?
5. Whether failure to implead the vendor of the suit property is justifiable?
6. Whether the plaintiff who had purchased the property subsequent to the defendant purchase, can claim easementary right?
4. Inasmuch as the scope of controversy between the parties as regards the subject matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail.
5. The respondent Sigamani has laid the suit against the appellant Nallamuthu in O.S. No.616 of 1993 for declaring his easementary right in respect of the B schedule property to enjoy the A schedule property and for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from constructing any building in the B schedule property. O.S. No. 865 of 1997 has been laid by the respondent Sigamani against the appellant Nallamuthu and others for the relief’s of declaration, mandatory injunction and permanent injunction in respect of the above-said suit property. It is found that inasmuch as the subject matter in both suits is one and the same, both suits were tried in common and in support of the respondent's case, PW1 has been examined, Exs.A1 to A14 were marked and on the side of the appellant, DW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B6 were marked. In addition to that, CW1 was examined and Exs.C1 to C4 were marked.
6. On an appreciation of the materials placed on record, the trial Court was pleased to decree both suits laid by the respondent Sigamani as prayed for. In the first appellate Court, in support of the respondent's case, two additional documents have come to be marked as Exs.A15 and A16. The first appellate Court, on an appreciation of the materials placed on record, concurred with the judgment and decree of the trial Court and thereby, dismissed the first appeal preferred by the appellant. Impugning the same, the present second appeals have come to be laid.
7. The main point involved in this second appeal is whether the suit property forms part of Sundarar street as claimed by the respondent or belongs to the appellant exclusively as put forth by the appellant. It is seen that the subject matter i.e., the suit property lies in survey No.314/1X. Materials placed on record go to show that the survey No.314 was originally owned by one Saminathan and it is found that various plots had been put up therein after approval which could be evidenced from the document marked as Ex.C1. Accordingly, it is found that the appellant's wife had purchased plot no.39 and the respondent had purchased plot no.75. The sale deed of the appellant's wife is marked as Ex.A14 and as determined by the Courts below, as per the description of the property comprised in the said document, the appellant's wife had been given the right to the public pathway under the said sale deed. The respondent's title deed has been mar
