Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M.SUNDAR, J.
Karthikeyan – Appellant
Versus
Jayaraman (Died) – Respondent
S.A.No.415 of 2021
Decided on : 28-04-2021
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' - Section 100, 96, 110 and Order XX Rule 12 - Suit for declaration of title - Recovery of possession - Whether any substantial question of law arises - Whether any substantial question of law arises in the case on hand - whether it is of general public importance - Whether if directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties and if - Whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by Court or by the Privy Council or by the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls - Suit property originally belonged to, who had three children, namely Ganesa Mudaliar, Kanni Murugappa Mudaliar at the time of marriage of to his sister's son one gifted/settled suit property to as Kuppusamy Mudaliar did not have ancestral properties; that this settlement was in and by a registered deed of settlement died some time in 1957 leaving behind three sons that according to the plaintiffs suit property was entrusted sometime in 1985 to one, their paternal aunt plaintiffs were unable to cultivate the suit property owing to their pre-occupation and employment elsewhere - plaint, the children of were arrayed as Defendants 1 to 6 and children of Murugappa Mudaliar's another son Kanni Mudaliar were arrayed as Defendants burden of the song qua 6th defendant is that the name of their grandfather is Mudaliar, that even though there was a settlement deed– Held, Court thought it necessary to deal with that question at some length and discuss alternative views, then question would be a substantial question of law. On the other hand if the question was practically covered by decision of highest court or if the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and only question was of applying those principles to particular facts of the case it would not be a substantial question of law - whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects rights of the parties and if so whether it is either an open question in the sense that it is not finally settled by this Court or by Privy Council or by Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views. If the question is settled by the highest court or general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and there is a mere question of applying those principles or that the plea raised is palpably absurd question would not be a substantial question of law - Entertaining a second appeal under Section 100 CPC and owing to the narrative thus far, this Court has no hesitation in holding none arises in the case on hand as nothing debatable, nothing res integra or no issue of disregarding settled principles arise. This answers the second point for determination and the first point for determination stands answered by the decision and dispositive reasoning preceding the same – Ordered Accordingly
JUDGMENT :
'Vintage' nay 'gravitating towards ancient' would be more appropriate to describe the lis which has lead to the captioned second appeal under Section 100 of 'The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ('CPC' for the sake of brevity) as a plaint was presented by three sons and one daughter of one Kuppusamy Mudaliar, nearly three decades ago, to be precise on 10.06.1991 on the file of District Munsif Court, Poonamallee. This plaint was taken on file as O.S.No.1089 of 1991 and later transferred to 'District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Sriperumbudur' ('trial Court' for the sake of convenience) and was assigned the number O.S.No.224 of 2009. The suit property is agricultural land ad-measuring 56 cents or thereabouts comprised in S.No.218/2 at 53 Madanandapuram Village, Porur Firka, Sriperumbudur Taluk. This Court is informed that this is in Kancheepuram District.
2. Owing to the nature of a legal drill under Section 100 CPC, short facts shorn of elaboration or in other words factual matrix in a nutshell containing essential facts imperative for appreciating this judgment will suffice.
3. Short facts are that suit property originally belonged to Murugappa Mudaliar, who had three children, namely Ganesa Mudaliar, Kanni Mudaliar (sons) and Chinnammal (daughter); that Murugappa Mudaliar at the time of marriage of Chinnammal to his sister's son one Kuppusamy Mudaliar gifted/settled suit property to Chinnammal as Kuppusamy Mudaliar did not have ancestral properties; that this settlement was in and by a registered deed of settlement dated 12.2.1943 (Ex.A1); that Chinnammal died some time in 1957 leaving behind three sons and one daughter (four plaintiffs in the trial Court); that according to the plaintiffs suit property was entrusted sometime in 1985 to one Chinnammal, their paternal aunt (6th defendant) as the plaintiffs were unable to cultivate the suit property owing to their pre-occupation and employment elsewhere; that their paternal aunt Chinnammal sometime in 1989 evaded to surrender and give back the suit property leading to presentation of plaint (as mentioned supra) in the trial Court in 1991; that in the plaint, the children of Ganesa Mudaliar (son of Murugappa Mudaliar) were arrayed as Defendants 1 to 6 and children of Murugappa Mudaliar's another son Kanni Mudaliar were arrayed as Defendants 7 to 11; that burden of the song qua 6th defendant is that the name of their grandfather is not Murugesa Mudaliar, but Murugappa Mudaliar, that even though there was a settlement deed Chinnammal (senior) was never put in possession of suit property; to be noted, plaintiffs' mother and their paternal aunt, daughter of Ganesa Mudaliar have the same name i.e., Chinnammal. Therefore, plaintiffs' mother shall be referred to as Chinnammal (senior) and 6th defendant shall be referred to as Chinnammal (junior); it is the further case of Chinnammal (junior) that suit property continued to be in possession of Ganesa Mudaliar and his son Appasami after whose demise Kanni Mudaliar was in possession of the suit property.
4. On aforementioned rival pleadings, trial Court framed issues, oral/documentary evidence was let in. Trial Court in and by judgment and decree dated 31.01.2012 decreed the suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and ordered separate proceedings under Order XX Rule 12 CPC for mesne profits; that the matter was carried in appeal by the defendants by way of a regular first appeal under Section 96 of 'The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ('CPC' for the sake of brevity) on the file of 'The Principal Subordinate Judge's Court, Kancheepuram' ('first Appellate Court' for the sake of brevity); that the first Appellate Court after full contest dismissed the first appeal confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court; that the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court is dated 27.04.2019; that defendants in the trial Court have now come up with captioned second appeal against aforementioned two concurrent ju
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
