Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. Kannammal, J.
S. Kannan – Appellant
Versus
R. Kesavan @ Murugesan – Respondent
A.S. No. 386 of 2014
Decided On : 14-07-2022
Property Dispute - Civil Procedure Code - Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 - Ex.B1-Manai Agreement, Ex.A2-Sale Deed - [1, 2, 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code] - The court discussed the validity of the Manai Agreement (Ex.B1) and the Sale Deed (Ex.A2) to determine the possession and ownership of the suit property. The court found that the appellant failed to prove his possession and enjoyment over the property through the Manai Agreement, while the respondent proved his absolute ownership through the registered Sale Deed and other supporting documents. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the trial court's decision.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession of a property purchased by him, while the defendant claimed possession based on a Manai Agreement and disputed the plaintiff's title.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant failed to prove his possession and enjoyment over the property through the Manai Agreement, while the respondent proved his absolute ownership through the registered Sale Deed and other supporting documents.
Issues: 1. Proof of defendant's possession through Manai Agreement (Ex.B1) 2. Proof of plaintiff's absolute ownership through Sale Deed (Ex.A2) 3. Validity of trial court's judgment and decree
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the validity of the Manai Agreement and Sale Deed to determine possession and ownership. It found that the appellant's evidence was not sufficient to establish his possession, while the respondent's evidence proved his absolute ownership.
Final Decision: The appeal suit was dismissed, and the trial court's decision was upheld, granting the respondent possession of the suit property.
Parties and Proceedings
- Appellant: S. Kannan (defendant in trial court). [21001433680001][21001433680002]
- Respondent: R. Kesavan @ Murugesan (plaintiff in trial court). [21001433680001][21001433680002]
- Trial Court: O.S. No. 52 of 2010, District Judge, Karaikal; decreed suit for declaration of ownership and recovery of possession on 07.02.2014. [21001433680001][21001433680007] (!)
- Appeal: A.S. No. 386 of 2014 under Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 CPC; dismissed on 14.07.2022. (!) (!) [21001433680020]
Facts
- Respondent purchased suit property (thatched house on land) via registered sale deed (Ex.A2, Doc. No. 931/2004 dated 24.09.2004) from Dominic Vijay Sagayaraj for Rs.1,05,000; vendor had permitted appellant permissive occupation, which ended upon sale. [21001433680003][21001433680016]
- Appellant claimed possession from 02.01.1998 via unregistered Manai Agreement (Ex.B1) from Santhiyagu Joseph (vendor's father) for Rs.60,000; alleged construction of house and continuous enjoyment; disputed respondent's title tracing to invalid adoption/Will of Yagapillai @ Perinbanathan. [21001433680004][21001433680008][21001433680011]
- Respondent issued notice to vacate; appellant refused and replied challenging title. [21001433680003][21001433680004]
- Evidence: Plaintiff - PW1 (respondent), PW2 (vendor), Exs.A1-A14 (incl. sale deed A2, tax receipts A7,A8,A10,A11,A13, patta A12). Defendant - DW1 (appellant), DW2, Exs.B1, X1. [21001433680006][21001433680016][21001433680017]
Issues Framed by Trial Court
1. Whether defendant occupied as licensee? [21001433680005]
2. Whether plaintiff is absolute owner? (!)
3. Entitlement to declaration of ownership? (!)
4. Entitlement to vacate/handover possession? (!)
5. Other reliefs? (!)
Appellate Issues
1. Proof of appellant's possession via Ex.B1? [21001433680010]
2. Proof of respondent's ownership via Ex.A2? (!)
3. Infirmities in trial court judgment? (!)
Findings and Reasoning
- Ex.B1 (unregistered Manai Agreement, plain paper, dated 02.01.1998): Invalid evidentiary value - written in multiple inks (suspicious addition of witness), affixed with Re.1 revenue stamp (incorrect; should be non-judicial stamp paper for agreements), lacks mutual rights/obligations, not engrossed properly; genuineness doubted; appellant failed to examine executor (Santhiyagu Joseph, alive at trial); DW2 insufficient. [21001433680011][21001433680012][21001433680013][21001433680014][21001433680015][21001433680008]
- Ex.A2 (registered sale deed): Proves absolute ownership; supported by PW2 (vendor confirming permissive occupation ended upon sale, appellant now trespasser), tax receipts in respondent's name, patta jointly with mother. [21001433680016][21001433680017]
- Appellant's prior possession claim rejected; had knowledge/notice but no superior title; failed to challenge upstream title (adoption/Will/gift deed). [21001433680008][21001433680018][21001433680019]
- Trial court decree upheld; no infirmities. [21001433680018]
Ratio Decidendi
Unregistered agreements like Ex.B1 lack evidentiary weight for proving possession/ownership if suspicious in form/execution (wrong stamp, multiple inks, no mutuality); registered sale deeds like Ex.A2, backed by supporting documents (vendor testimony, tax/patta), establish absolute title superior to permissive claims. [21001433680012][21001433680013][21001433680014][21001433680016][21001433680017][21001433680018]
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed; trial court judgment/decree confirmed; appellant granted 1 month to vacate/deliver possession (extended in appeal). No costs. [21001433680020][21001433680007]
JUDGMENT :
(Prayer: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and the Decree passed in O.S.No.52 of 2010 dated 07.02.2014 on the file of the learned District Judge, Karaikal.)
1. This Appeal Suit has been preferred by the unsuccessful defendant against the judgment and the decree, dated 07.02.2014, passed in O.S.No.52 of 2010 by the learned District Judge, Karaikal, thereby decreeing the suit as prayed for in favour of the plaintiff.
2. The defendant in the above suit is the appellant herein and the plaintiff is the respondent. The suit was one for declaration and recovery of possession.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be hereinafter referred to as per their nomenclature before the trial Court.
4. According to the plaintiff, he purchased the suit schedule property from one Dominic Vijay Sagayaraj by way of a sale deed, dated 24.09.2004, and in the suit schedule property there was a thatched house constructed by the plaintiff's vendor and he permitted the defendant to occupy the same. Since the property was purchased by the plaintiff, the licence granted by his vendor in favour of the defendant came to an end and thereby the defendant had no right to continue to be in possession of the said property. However, the defendant was claiming right over the property adjacent to the suit property which was belonging to the mother of the plaintiff. The defendant was issued a legal notice by the plaintiff calling upon him to vacate and hand over the suit property with mesne profits. Thereafter, the defendant approached the plaintiff in person and sought for time to vacate the suit property which was also granted by him. However, the defendant refused to vacate the suit property and even denied the title of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the bona fide purchaser of the suit property by virtue of a registered sale deed, but the defendant refused to vacate the said property with a malafide intention to grab the same. Therefore, the plaintiff has approached the Court below and filed the suit for declaration, delivery of possession and for costs of the suit.
5. Resisting the suit filed by the plaintiff, the defendant filed a written statement, inter alia, stating that the suit property originally belonged to one Yagapillai @ Perinbanathan and he had adopted one Santhiyagu Joseph as his adopted son and by virtue of a Will, dated 15.03.1978, he allotted the suit property and other items of properties to him. After the death of Yagapillai @ Perinbanathan, his adopted son Santhiyagu Joseph became the owner of the suit property by virtue of the Will, who later executed a gift deed in favour of his son Dominic Vijay Sagayaraj. The suit property was sold away by the said Dominic Vijay Sagayaraj to the plaintiff on the basis of the gift deed, but the adoption is unknown to Christian law and thereby Santhiyagu Joseph cannot become the adopted son of the said Yagapillai @ Perinbanathan and the Will executed by him is not valid. The said Santhiyagu Joseph does not have any right to claim right over the property covered under the Will. Therefore, the said Santhiyagu Joseph had no right to execute sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant occupied the suit property after paying a sum of Rs.60,000/- to the said Santhiyagu Joseph on 02.01.1998, who, in turn, handed over the said property to the defendant and also executed an agreement in his favour. Later, the defendant constructed a house in the said property and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same and he is not a trespasser as claimed by the plaintiff but, he is a permissive occupier of the suit property. The defendant has also sent a reply notice to the plaintiff challenging the very title of the plaintiff and his mother. The plaintiff has no right to deny the execution of the agreement on borrowal of a sum of Rs.60,000/- by Santhiyagu Joseph. The plaintiff has valued only
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
