Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Sundar, J.
P. Jayakodi – Appellant
Versus
V.P. Andamuthu S/o. Perumal and ors. – Respondents
S.A.No.421 of 2021
Decided On : 29-04-2021
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 133(1)(a) - Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Section 110 and 100 - Registered sale deed - Possession of the suit property - Whether Courts below have erred in their findings regarding absence of declaration prayer and possession - Whether any substantial question of law arises case on hand - Whether a question of law raised in case is substantial would - Whether it is of general public importance or whether it directly and substantially affects the rights of the parties - 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 the Federal Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views - Plaintiffs that suit property was purchased by them under a registered sale deed registered as document file of Sub Registrar's Office, Thingalur - It is also specific case of the plaintiffs that they jointly purchased the suit property, they were put in possession on purchase - served with suit summons, sole defendant entered appearance through an advocate, filed a written statement and completed pleadings - Perusal of pleadings of sole defendant i.e., written statement, more particularly paragraph 7 of the written statement makes it clear that the defendant does not dispute that the plaintiffs have purchased suit property under Ex.A1-Sale Deed - Pleadings of the defendant is that plaintiffs vendor one had purchased suit property nearly 6 ½ months prior to alienation by him, to be precise on but suit property actually belongs to one and it is in possession of defendant - Pleading that at time of purchase by Sakthivel, there was no conversion of suit property into house site - Be that as it may, central theme of defendant's pleading is that they are in possession of suit property and that it originally belonged to one Sakthivel - 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 the decision of the highest court or if general principles to be applied in determining the question are well settled and the only question was of applying those principles to the particular facts of case it would not be a substantial question of law - Court or is not free from difficulty or calls for discussion of alternative views - Question is settled by the highest court or the 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 the question would not be a substantial question of law - Deems it appropriate to dismiss captioned Second Appeal at the admission stage holding that no substantial question of law arises in the captioned Second Appeal – Ordered Accordingly
JUDGMENT :
Lis out of which captioned Second Appeal arises commenced nearly a decade ago, to be precise on 17.05.2011 when two individuals (respondents in captioned Second Appeal) presented a plaint in 'District Munsif's Court, Perundurai' ['trial Court' for brevity]. This plaint was taken on file as O.S.No.148 of 2011 and in this suit, lone appellant in the captioned Second Appeal is the sole defendant. Prayer in the suit before trial Court is for bare injunction (possession) qua suit property admeasuring 1200 sq.ft or thereabouts (111.50 sq.mtrs. or thereabouts). A perusal of the plaint schedule brings to light that the suit property is vacant land.
2. From hereon, parties shall be referred to by their respective ranks in trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity. Therefore, respondents in captioned Second Appeal shall be referred to as 'plaintiffs' and appellant in captioned Second Appeal shall be referred to as 'defendant'.
3. It is the specific case of plaintiffs that suit property was purchased by them under a registered sale deed dated 09.09.2008, registered as document No.1996/2008 on the file of Sub Registrar's Office, Thingalur. It is also the specific case of the plaintiffs that they jointly purchased the suit property, they were put in possession on the date of purchase i.e., 09.09.2008 and the plaintiffs had also filed the original sale deed dated 09.09.2008, (which came to be marked as Ex.A1 in trial).
4. On being served with suit summons, sole defendant entered appearance through an advocate, filed a written statement dated 21.09.2011 and completed pleadings. A perusal of the pleadings of sole defendant i.e., written statement, more particularly paragraph 7 of the written statement makes it clear that the defendant does not dispute that the plaintiffs have purchased suit property under Ex.A1-Sale Deed. The pleadings of the defendant is that plaintiffs vendor one S.K.Chinnappan had purchased the suit property nearly 6 ½ months prior to alienation by him, to be precise on 18.02.2008 but the suit property actually belongs to one Sakthivel and it is in the possession of defendant from 03.04.2002. There was also a pleading that at the time of purchase by Sakthivel, there was no conversion of suit property into house site. Be that as it may, central theme of the defendant's pleading is that they are in possession of suit property and that it originally belonged to one Sakthivel. In the trial Court, second plaintiff S.Shanmugam examined himself as PW1 and the sole defendant examined herself as DW1. One N.R.Subramaniam, neighbour deposed as PW2 and one G.Thiagarajan deposed as DW-2. On behalf of plaintiffs, four exhibits namely Exs.A1 to A4 were marked and on behalf of defendant, six exhibits namely Exs.B1 to B6 were marked. However, what is of significance is, in the course of proceedings before the trial Court, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed, Advocate Commissioner made local inspection and filed a report, sketch and surveyor's sketch, which were marked as Exs.C1, C2 and C3 respectively.
5. Trial Court, on appreciation of Ex.A1 as also Exs.A2, A3 and A4, which are Patta, Adangal and A-Register respectively, came to the conclusion that plaintiffs are in possession of suit property and that the defendant, who is a third party qua suit property, is interfering with the plaintiffs' possession of the suit property.
6. Trial Court has also noticed that a small water tank was built by the plaintiffs in the suit property and this factum was not denied by the defendant. In this view of the matter, trial Court disbelieved Ex.B5, which are water charges receipts and said this would not go to prove that the defendant has put up a water tank in the suit property. On this basis, trial Court disbelieved pleadings of the defendant that she is in possession of the suit property. In the result, the suit was decreed by trial Court by judgment and decree dated 26.11.2019.
7. Sole defendant carried the matter in appeal by way of
SupremeToday
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
