Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
R. Selvaraj (died) & Others - Appellant
Versus
Amutha & Others - Respondent
Second Appeal Nos. 257 & 260 of 2012 & MP Nos. 1 & 1 of 2012
Decided On : 07-04-2022
Property Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure - Section 100 - [PROPERTY DISPUTE] - [Code of Civil Procedure - Section 100] - The court discussed the ownership of the suit property and the validity of the sale deeds executed by the parties. The key legal provisions discussed include the definition of 'proved' under Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the standard of proof governed by preponderance of probabilities. The court emphasized the need for documents creating new rights to be proved beyond doubt when put against registered documents involving the same parties. The court found that an unregistered document introduced during the pendency of the suit was unreliable and could not prevail upon the registered documents.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant claimed ownership and possession of a property, while the respondent claimed ownership of certain portions of the same property. The trial court ruled in favor of the appellant, but the lower appellate court reversed the decision based on the introduction of an unregistered document during the pendency of the suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the unregistered document introduced during the pendency of the suit was unreliable and could not prevail upon the registered documents. The lower appellate court's reliance on the unregistered document was deemed improper, and the findings were considered to be perverse due to improper appreciation of the evidence.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the ownership and title of the suit property, the validity of sale deeds, and the introduction of an unregistered document during the pendency of the suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for documents creating new rights to be proved beyond doubt when put against registered documents involving the same parties. The court applied the standard of proof governed by preponderance of probabilities and found that the unregistered document introduced during the pendency of the suit was unreliable.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Second Appeals, set aside the lower appellate court's judgment, and restored the trial court's judgment in favor of the appellant. The suit filed by the appellant was decreed as prayed for, and the judgment in favor of the respondent was set aside with respect to the third item of the suit property.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer in S.A.No.257/2012 : Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 23.08.2011 made in A.S.No.2 of 2011 on the file of Sub Judge, Rasipuram in reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 23.12.2010 made in O.S.No.447 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Judge, Rasipuram.
S.A.No.258/2012 : Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 23.08.2011 made in A.S.No.3 of 2011 on the file of Sub Judge, Rasipuram in reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 23.12.2010 made in O.S.No.15 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Judge, Rasipuram.)
Common Judgment
1. The issue involved in both the Second Appeals are common and hence they are taken up together, heard and disposed of through this Common Judgment.
2. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 15 of 2000 and the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 447 of 2004 is the appellant in these Second Appeals.
3. The appellant filed the suit in O.S. No. 15 of 2000 on the ground that he became the absolute owner of the property in Survey No. 352/1A measuring an extent of 42 cents along with a well, motor and electricity connection from one Ramasamy Gounder and his wife Perumayee through a registered sale deed dated 18.2.1998, marked as Ex. A1. The further case of the appellant was that he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property by paying the necessary kist and tax.
4. The grievance of the appellant was that the defendant who had their property on the western and northern side of the suit property were pressurising the appellant to sell his property. Since the appellant refused to sell the property, the defendant developed an enmity and consequently started preventing the appellant from enjoying his property. The appellant, left with no other option filed the suit seeking for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant.
5. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No. 447 of 2004 against the appellant and others. The case of the 1st respondent was that the three items of suit property which were shown in the plaint schedule originally belonged to the family of Ramasamy Gounder. In the year 1943, Ramasamy Gounder and his family divided the property through a oral partition whereby certain portions of the property were allotted to the share of Ramasamy Gounder and certain other portions were allotted to the share of his son Kumarasamy. The 1st respondent/plaintiff purchased the first item of the suit property from the said Ramasamy Gounder through a sale deed dated 27.11.1997 which was marked as Ex.A1. Insofar as the second item of the suit property is concerned, the 1st respondent/plaintiff purchased the same from Kumarasamy through a registered sale deed dated 5.12.1997 marked as Ex.A2. The third item of the suit property was purchased from Kumarasamy, his wife and children through a registered sale deed dated 23.1.1998,marked as Ex.A3. The third item of the suit property was described as 20 cents of land out of 40 cents in Survey No. 352/1A along with the super structures therein, well, electricity connection and the right of pathway.
6. The grievance of the 1st respondent/plaintiff was that the said Ramasamy Gounder and his wife Perumayee with the help of the appellant started challenging the 1st respondent/plaintiff with regard to her right and title over the suit property and was preventing her from peacefully enjoying the property. Hence the suit was filed seeking for the relief of declaration of title with respect to 2nd and 3rd item of the suit property and for permanent injunction with respect to all the properties.
7. The appellant who filed a written statement in O.S. No. 447 of 2004 basically challenged the claim made by the 1st respondent/plaintiff over the 3rd item of the suit property which is the land situated at Survey No. 352/1A. The appellant took a defence that when the 1st item of the suit property was sold in favour of the 1st responde
AI
The appellate court determined that the First Appellate Court erred in not properly evaluating the ownership evidence, resulting in incorrect distribution of property rights and affirming the Plainti....
The principle of feeding the grant by estoppel allows a subsequent acquisition of title to validate an earlier transfer made by a person who lacked title at the time of the transfer, thereby protecti....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for claimants to provide sufficient and relevant evidence to prove their absolute possession of a property, and the enforceability ....
Compulsory registration as adumbrated under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, failing which, the claimants/appellants have to face mischief consequences of Section 49 of the Registration Act
In mofussil litigation, courts should interpret pleadings liberally to serve substantial justice. While a plaintiff must prove title independently and cannot rely on revenue records alone, a party in....
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
