Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 1713
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. RAVINDRAN, J.
Shobby Chand Surana & Another - Appellant
Versus
Mohammad N. Rasheed & Another - Respondent
S.A. No. 56 of 2016 & CMP. No. 1413 of 2016
Decided On : 25-07-2019
For the Appellants : N. Manokaran, Adv.
For the Respondents: P. Sidharthan, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the validity of settlement deeds and the effect of pending litigation on property acquisition.
Headnote:
Second Appeal - Permanent Injunction - Civil Procedure Code - Section 100 - O.S.No.146 of 2006, A.S.No.29 of 2012 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Civil Procedure Code, Section 100 - The court discussed the ownership of the property, the validity of settlement deeds, the effect of pending litigation on property acquisition, and the entitlement of legal heirs to property shares. The court also considered the necessity of seeking a declaration of title and the issue of non-joinder of necessary parties.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the ownership of a property and the plaintiffs' claim for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction against the defendants' construction on the property. The plaintiffs asserted their rights based on settlement deeds executed by their mother, while the defendants claimed ownership through purchase from legal heirs of the plaintiffs' mother.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiffs had valid entitlement to the property based on settlement deeds executed by their mother, and the defendants' claim of ownership through purchase from legal heirs was rejected. The court also held that the plaintiffs' suit was not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and that seeking a declaration of title was unnecessary given the previous court rulings.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of settlement deeds, the effect of pending litigation on property acquisition, the necessity of seeking a declaration of title, and the issue of non-joinder of necessary parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the validity of settlement deeds, the effect of pending litigation on property acquisition, and the entitlement of legal heirs to property shares. The court also emphasized that seeking a declaration of title was unnecessary given the previous court rulings.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed with costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2015 made in A.S.No.29 of 2012 on the file of the Sub court, Tiruttani, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2012 made in O.S.No.146 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruttani.
1. In this second appeal, challenge is made to the judgment and decree dated 10.07.2015 passed in A.S.No.29 of 2012 on the file of the Subordinate court, Tiruttani, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2012 passed in O.S.No.146 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruttani.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial court.
3. Suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction.
4. Briefly stated, according to the plaintiffs, the survey No.4 consisting of 28.02 acres belonged to their mother Kader Bi and that she had sold 5 acres in the same to one Appasamy and executed four settlement deeds dated 20.03.1984 and 27.03.1984 settling 7 acres each in favour of the plaintiffs and handed over the possession of the same to the plaintiffs and furthermore, their mother Kader Bi also executed a power of attorney deed for the remaining 9.02 acres in favour of the first plaintiff and the first plaintiff's brother Mohammed Hameed filed O.S.No.45 of 1987 for declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the abovesaid property contending that the same had been purchased by him benami in the name of his mother Kadar Bi and the abovesaid suit has been dismissed and the first appeal preferred had been allowed and as against the same, the second appeal in SA No.1548 of 2001 is pending and the Hight has stayed the judgment and decree of the first appellate court and despite the abovesaid position, the defendants had trespassed and put up the construction in a portion of the suit property despite the objection put forth by the plaintiffs and hence, according to the plaintiffs, the need for the suit.
5. The defendants resisted the plaintiffs' suit contending that Survey No.4 had been purchased by Mohammed Hameed vide registered sale deed dated 10.09.1964 in the name of his mother Kadar Bi benami and on the strength of his title, he had converted the land in the abovesaid survey number into plots and sold them to the defendants as detailed in the written statement and accordingly, the defendants had put up the construction in that plots purchased by them and the defendants have also purchased further plots from the legal heirs of Mohammed Hameed and thus according to the defendants, they are the absolute owners of the property purchased by them and the suit levied by the plaintiffs, without seeking the relief of declaration of title, is not maintainable and therefore, according to the defendants, the plaintiffs have no title to the suit property and not entitled to seek and obtain the reliefs prayed for and the suit is liable to be dismissed.
6. In support of the plaintiffs' case P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A34 were marked. On the side of the defendants D.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.B1 to B50 were marked.
7. On consideration of the materials placed on record by the respective parties and submissions made, the courts below were pleased to grant the relief in favour of the plaintiffs as prayed for. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has been preferred.
8. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration.
“i) Whether the courts below erred in ignoring the admitted fact that the vendor of the appellants by name Mohd. Hameed being the son of the original owner Khadar Bi is entitled to get a share as her legal heir notwithstanding the judgment dated 27.08.2008 made in S.A.Nos. 1089 and 1548 of 2001 (E.A14 and Ex.A15) if so, the said share of Mohd. Hameed can be given to the defendants on equity?
(ii) Whether the plaintiffs can be non-suited for want
