Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 1411
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. HEMALATHA, J.
Shanthi & Others - Appellant
Versus
Rajangam (died) & Others - Respondent
S.A. No. 1614 of 1999 & C.M.P. Nos. 7065 & 7066 of 2000
Decided On : 31-03-2022
For the Appellants:P. Tamilavel, Advocate. For the Respondents:C. Parthiban, M.V. Krishnan, Advocates.
The judgment emphasizes the principles of property ownership, burden of proof, adverse possession, and the limited jurisdiction of the High Court in second appeals.
Headnote:
Second Appeal - Property Dispute - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 68 - Adverse Possession - Prescription
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of their title to a property and for a Permanent Injunction. The trial court dismissed the suit and allowed the counter claim of the defendants. The first appellate court upheld the findings of the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The courts held that the suit property was self-acquired by the father and not purchased using the funds of the deceased husband. The courts also concluded that the plaintiffs failed to establish title and possession over the suit property, and the defendants proved their claim.
Issues: The substantial questions of law in the second appeal were whether the lower courts were correct in their findings regarding the property's ownership and whether the decree for possession was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The courts found that the suit property was self-acquired and that the plaintiffs failed to prove their title and possession. Additionally, adverse possession and prescription claims were dismissed as contradictory to the plaintiffs' claimed title through a sale deed.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, and the decrees and judgments of the lower courts were upheld.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908 against the decree and judgment dated 05.11.1998 passed in A.S. No.112 of 1998, on the file of the District Judge, Trichy, upholding the decree and judgment dated 29.09.1997 passed in O.S. No.21 of 1990, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur.)
1. The unsuccessful plaintiffs before both the courts below have filed the present second appeal.
2. The plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S. No.21/1990 before the Subordinate Court, Ariyalur, for declaration of their title to the suit property and for a consequential relief of Permanent Injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and also for a Permanent Injunction restraining the first defendant from alienating the suit property in favour of the second defendant and for costs.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court and at appropriate places, their rank in the present appeal would also be indicated.
4. The minimum facts that are required for the disposal of the present second appeal are as follows:
One Somu is the husband of the first plaintiff and father of the plaintiffs 2 to 5. Rajangam, the first defendant, is the brother of Somu. Somu, Rajangam (first defendant) and one Mani are the sons of Arumugam. One Padmavathi is the daughter of Arumugam. Somu left for Singapore and was having a hair saloon over there. He sent money to his father Arumugam. His family (plaintiffs) was also living with his father Arumugam. From out of the money sent by Somu, Arumugam purchased the suit property in his name through a registered sale deed dated 29.08.1971. A registration copy of the said sale deed was marked as Ex.A4 and the original sale deed was marked as Ex.B1. Somu, during his life time executed a Release Deed dated 26.09.1972 (Ex.B2) in respect of the joint family properties of his family comprising his father and his two brothers, namely, Rajangam (first defendant) and Mani. There was also a partition of the joint family properties between Arumugam and his other two sons through a registered partition deed dated 07.06.1983 (Ex.B3). The suit property was not the subject matter of the partition deed Ex.B3 and according to the plaintiffs since the suit property was purchased by Arumugam from out of the money sent by Somu, it was set apart for Somu. Somu also retained the suit property and two house-sites on the western side of the suit property and relinquished his share in respect of other properties. Somu died of cardiac arrest at Singapore on 08.08.1987. There was a dispute in respect of the suit property between the first defendant and his sister Padmavathi and therefore, the first defendant forcefully obtained the signature of his father in a registered Settlement Deed dated 14.09.1988 (Ex.B4) and also attempted to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. The first plaintiff, therefore, preferred a private complaint before the Judicial Magistrate No. I, Ariyalur, against the first defendant. The plaintiffs, being in continuous possession over the suit property, have also prescribed title by way of adverse possession and prescription. The plaintiffs have, therefore, filed the suit for a declaration and injunction.
5. The defendants filed their written statement along with a counter claim. Their contention is that the suit property was not purchased by utilising the funds of Somu and that it is the self acquired property of late Arumugam. According to them, there were no ties with Somu by the rest of the family subsequent to the Release Deed dated 26.09.1972 (Ex.B2) executed by Somu in respect of the joint family properties. It is further averred that a registered Settlement Deed dated 14.09.1988 (Ex.B4) in respect of the suit property was executed by Arumugam in favour of the first defendant and the first defendant in turn executed a registered sale deed
