Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
S.N. Subramani & Others - Appellant
Versus
R. Rathnasamy (died) & Others - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 136 of 2013 & MP. No. 1 of 2013
Decided On : 17-03-2022
Title Declaration - Code of Civil Procedure - Section 100 - 67 Evidence Act - [Ex.A-4, Ex.A-14, Ex.B-1, Ex.B-3] - The court analyzed the exchange deed (Ex.A-4) and sale deed (Ex.A-14) to establish the plaintiffs' title and possession in the suit property. The defendants failed to prove the existence of a 40 feet wide cart track as claimed, and the documents (Ex.B-1, Ex.B-3) presented by the defendants did not support their claim. The court found no ground to interfere with the concurrent judgment and decree of both the Courts below.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs sought a declaration of title in the suit property and challenged the registration of a new cart track through a sale deed. The defendants claimed the existence of a 40 feet wide cart track and sought dismissal of the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that they had established their title and possession in the suit property, while the defendants failed to prove the existence of the claimed cart track.
Issues: Dispute over title and existence of a 40 feet wide cart track in the suit property.
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiffs successfully established their title and possession through the exchange deed (Ex.A-4) and other supporting documents, while the defendants' evidence failed to prove the existence of the claimed cart track.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, and no order as to cost was issued.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.88 of 2011, dated 18.07.2012, on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Erode, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.194 of 2009 dated 20.8.2011 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Erode.)
1. The defendants 1 to 5, 8 and 9 are the appellants in this Second Appeal.
2. The 1st and 2nd respondents along with their father filed a suit seeking for the relief of declaration of title in the suit property and for a declaration that the registration of the new cart track through sale deed dated 25.01.2008 by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant is null and void and for the relief of permanent injunction.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that they are the absolute owners of the suit property in R.S.No.519/2 measuring an extent of 15 cents and the entire extent of R.S.No.519/3 and they also claimed to be the joint owners of R.S.No.519/4 along with one Karuppana Gounder. The further case of the plaintiffs is that on the northern side of their properties, there is a cart track with a width of 15 feet which runs East-West in R.S.No.519/1 and part of R.S.No.519/4 adjoining the survey fields from the western side of North-South Erode to Muthur Main Road, towards West and the same turns towards South at the western corner of R.S.No.519/2 where the land belonging to the 1st defendant is situated. According to the plaintiffs, this cart track measuring 15 feet wide is the only passage to reach the lands on the western side from the main road. The plaintiffs had filed a rough plan along with the plaint explaining the entire location of the properties.
4. It is stated that R.S.No.519/2 measuring an extent of 3.22 acres was originally owned by Subbaraya Gounder and Rangasamy Gounder. It was succeeded by their legal representatives Periammal and others. The plaintiffs entered into an exchange deed with the said Periammal and others and thereby an extent of 15 cents of their western portion of land in R.S.No.519/3 was exchanged with 15 cents of land of Periammal and others in the northern portion adjoining the 15 feet cart track which runs upto the lands of the 1st defendant. The exchange deed dated 15.03.2006 was also marked as Ex.A-4. The plaintiffs claimed that the exchange deed was acted upon and the respective parties took possession and were enjoying the exchanged properties.
5. The plaintiffs also mutated their names in the revenue records subsequent to the execution of the exchange deed. It is stated that defendants 3, 4 and 5 purchased an extent of 1 acre of land in R.S.No.519/2 which is situated on the extreme West of the suit property from Periammal and others. Thereafter, they executed a power of attorney in favour of the 2nd defendant and authorized him to sell the property. While doing so, it is stated that they have mischievously shown a 40 feet wide East-West cart track running from Erode Muthur Road towards West. According to the plaintiffs, this was intentionally done to grab/annex the 15 cents of land that was acquired by the plaintiffs through the exchange deed dated 15.03.2006. This power of attorney was also acted upon and a sale deed was executed in favour of the 1st defendant on 25.01.2008 and this document has been marked as Ex.A-14. Immediately on coming to know of the same, the plaintiffs issued a legal notice dated 29.12.2008, marked as Ex.A-17, to all the defendants. On receipt of the same, defendants 1 to 5 gave a reply notice dated 30.01.2009, marked as Ex.A-18 and they virtually questioned the exchange deed and claimed as if, they have a right over the suit property and denied the right and title of the plaintiffs over the suit property. It is under these circumstances, the suit came to be filed seeking for the reliefs mentioned supra.
6. The 1st defendant filed a written statement and this was adopted by defendants 2, 4 and 5. They took a
The burden of proof lies with the party making a specific claim, and the court will analyze the evidence presented to establish the truth of the claim.
The limitations of interference under Sec. 100 of CPC and the requirement of substantial question of law for second appeal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for clear title and acceptable evidence to support claims of possession and easementary rights.
Interpretation of Will and Sale Deeds to determine the right to use the common cart track.
A prescriptive easement right is established through clear evidence of continuous, long-standing usage by the claimant and their predecessors, documented in historical title deeds, unaffected by the ....
The court affirmed that plaintiffs possess easementary rights over a common Cart Track, while the defendants' claims of absolute ownership were unsupported by evidence.
The courts upheld the right of the plaintiffs to use the cart track as mentioned in the schedule to the plaint, perfected by prescription and necessity.
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
