Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 94
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. Tharani, J.
K.Ramasamy and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
S.Sundaravadivel and Ors. – Respondents
S.A.(MD)Nos.469 and 479 of 2013 and M.P.(MD)No.2 of 2013
Decided On : 11-01-2019
For the Appellant : Mr. G. Prabhu Rajadurai
For the Respondent: Mr. J. Maria Roseline
The main legal point established is that questions of fact, such as possession and title, are not maintainable as questions of law in the absence of proof.
Headnote:
Property Dispute - Natham Property - 1987(267-87) - Exs.A1 to A5, Exs.B1 to B15 - A.K.Thillaivanam and another V. The District Collector and others (1998 3 L.W. 603), The Executive Officer V. V.Swaminathan and others ((2004)2 M.L.J. 708), Dharmapura Adhinam Mutt V. Raghavan and Another ((2012) 1 M.L.J. 369), Muthammal (died) and others V. State of Tamil Nadu and another ((2006) 3 M.L.J. 216), Kammavar Sangam through its Secretary R.Krishnasamy v. Mani Janagarajan (1999 (III) CTC 304), Boodireddy Chandraiah and others v. Arigela Laxmi and another ((2007) 8 Supreme Court Cases 155)
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed a suit for permanent injunction, while the respondents filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession. The lower courts decreed the suit in favor of the respondents and dismissed the appellants' suit. The appellants appealed, but the appeals were dismissed, leading to the second appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants failed to prove their title over the disputed property and that the questions raised by the appellants were questions of fact, not law. The court dismissed the second appeals, stating that there was no merit in them and no necessity to interfere with the lower courts' judgments.
Issues: The issues revolved around the possession and title of the disputed property, the validity of documents, and the nature of the property as natham land.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellants failed to prove their title and that the questions raised were questions of fact, not law.
Final Decision: The second appeals were dismissed with no costs.
Heard Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.J.Maria Roseline, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The appeals have been filed against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.Nos.75 and 76 of 2011 dated 18.09.2012 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Trichy confirming the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.Nos.2029 of 2006 and 164 of 2007 dated 26.02.2010 on the file of the learned II Additional District Munsif, Trichy.
3. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.2029 of 2006 and they filed the suit for permanent injunction. The respondents are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.164 of 2007 and they filed a suit seeking for a relief of declaration and for recovery of possession by directing the defendants to deliver possession of the suit property after removing the thatched shed put up over the foundation laid in the suit property. The appellants are the defendants in O.S.No.164 of 2007. Both the suits were tried together by the learned II Additional District Munsif, Trichy and he has passed a common Judgment in both the suits on 26.02.2010. The learned II Additional District Munsif, Trichy has decreed the suit in O.S.No.164 of 2007 and has dismissed the suit in O.S.No.2029 of 2006. Against the Judgment and Decree, the appellants herein have filed appeals in A.S.Nos.75 and 76 of 2011 before the Principal Sub Court, Trichy. The learned Principal Sub Judge has dismissed the appeals and has confirmed the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court. Against the dismissal of appeals, the appellants herein have filed these second appeal.
4. The case of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.164 of 2007 is that the suit property is a natham poramboke which was in the enjoyment of one Anthony and the suit property was allotted to him by the Tahsildar, Trichy. Subsequently, this property was sold to one Jegathambal on 17.04.1971. She has obtained patta and constructed a basement and she died interstate on 28.12.1995 and the legal heirs of Jegathambal who are the plaintiffs have obtained patta in their name and that the plaintiffs 2 and 3 got married and the 1st plaintiff was working out of station and they were not in a position to look after the property and that only in the year 2006, the first plaintiff came to know that the first defendant has raised a thatched house in his property and that the suit was filed for declaration and for recovery of possession.
5. The case of the defendant in O.S.No.164 of 2007 is that the proceedings of the Tahsildar in favour of Antony is a forged document. If the land was allotted to Antony by the Government, that land could not have be sold out within a period of 10 years. If the condition was violated, the original allotment will be cancelled and that the sale deed in favour of Jagathambal is not valid and that the property is in enjoyment of the first defendant and that in the year 1987, the Tahsildar has issued an assessment order in favour of the defendant and that the defendants have also obtained E.B. Connection and are paying house tax.
6. The case of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.2029 of 2006 is that the suit property is in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and his ancestors. On 29.11.2006, the defendant has interfered with the possession of the plaintiff and a Police complaint was lodged. The plaintiffs have spent Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) and has constructed a house in the suit property and the defendants have to be prevented by an order of injunction.
7. The case of defendant in O.S.No.2029 of 2006 is that the description of the property is wrong and that all the documents filed by the plaintiffs are forged documents and that one Antony was the owner of the suit property and he has executed a sale deed in favour of Jagathambal and that Jagathambal has obtained patta and was in enjoyment and that the plaintiffs are legal heirs of Jagathambal and that as the defendants are not available in the village, the plaintiffs have
