Back
2022 Supreme(Mad) 1531
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
S.K. Krishnan & Others - Appellant
Versus
Ambal Traders by partner, M. Arumugam & Others - Respondent
Second Appeal Nos. 47 of 2013 & 294 of 2016
Decided On : 18-04-2022
For the Appellants:T.R. Rajagopalan, Senior Counsel for M/s. M. Thangadurai, P. Seshadri, Advocates. For the Respondents:M. Vaidhyanathan, M.V. Venkataseshan, M. Vaidhyanathan, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the recognition of Ellaiah Reddiar as the owner of the property in S.No. 76, T.S.No. 87, and T.S.No. 88, and the identification of plot no. 40 within this property.
Headnote:
Judgment - Code of Civil Procedure - S.A.No.47/2013, S.A.No.294/2016 - Section 100 - O.S.No.8909 of 1979 - S.No. 88 - S.No. 76 - T.S.No. 87 - T.S.No. 88 - Ekkaduthangal, Madras - Urban Land Tax Act - Leasehold Inam Abolition Act (Act 27 of 1963) - Advocate Commissioner - Surveyor - Right and Title - Identification of Property
Fact of the Case:
The case involved two Second Appeals challenging the judgment and decree passed in AS No. 256 of 2008 and AS No. 274 of 2008 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC No. IV), Chennai, dated 22-3-2012, confirming the judgment and decree passed in OS No.8909 of 1979 by the XIV Assistant City Civil judge at Chennai, dated 10-12-2007. The dispute revolved around the right and title over properties in S.No. 88 and S.No. 76, T.S.No. 87 and T.S.No. 88 in Ekkaduthangal, Madras, and the identification of plot no. 40 within these properties.
Finding of the Court:
The Court analyzed the facts and evidence, including oral and documentary evidence, and found that Ellaiah Reddiar had the right and title over the property in S.No. 76, T.S.No. 87, and T.S.No. 88. The Court also recognized Ellaiah Reddiar as the owner of plot no. 40 within the property. The Court held that the findings of both the lower Courts did not suffer from any perversity and dismissed the Second Appeals.
Issues: The main issues included the right and title over the properties in S.No. 88 and S.No. 76, T.S.No. 87 and T.S.No. 88, the identification of plot no. 40 within these properties, and the impact of the demise of a party and the withdrawal of a related suit.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was based on the analysis of the right and title over the properties and the identification of plot no. 40 within the properties. The Court found that the findings of both the lower Courts did not suffer from any perversity and upheld their decisions.
Final Decision: Both the Second Appeals were dismissed with costs.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer in S.A.No.47/2013: Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree of the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV, Chennai-I confirmed in A.S.No.256 of 2008 dated 22.03.2012 and Judgment and Decree of XIV Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai –104 in O.S.No.8909 of 1979 dated 10.12.2007.
S.A.No.294/2016: Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.8909 of 1979 on the file of XIV Asst.City Civil Court, Chennai dated 10.12.2007 and confirmed in A.S.No.256 of 2008 and 274 of 2008 on the file of Additional District Sessions Judge & Fast Track Court IV, Chennai dated 22.3.2012 to allow the Second Appeal.)
Common Judgment
1. The 2nd defendant was the appellant in S.A No. 47 of 2013. After his demise, his legal representatives have been brought on record as appellants 2 to 6. The 3rd defendant and the legal representatives of the 4th and 5th defendants are the appellants in S.A.No. 294 of 2016. Both the Second Appeals challenges the judgment and decree passed in AS No. 256 of 2008 and AS No. 274 of 2008 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC No. IV), Chennai, dated 22-3-2012, confirming, the judgment and decree passed in OS No.8909 of 1979 by the XIV Assistant City Civil judge at Chennai, dated 10-12-2007.
2. This case has a chequered history. However, the entire facts/dispute among the parties was dealt with elaborately by this Court in the earlier round in SA.No.1661 of 1989 and other connected Second Appeals, by judgment dated 24-12-1999. This Court remanded the matter back to the file of the trial Court by giving some indications regarding the scope of remand in the judgment itself. Hence, there will be no requirement for this Court to once again deal with the facts of the case elaborately and it will suffice to test the judgment and decree rendered by both the Courts below and see if it comes within the scope of remand and ensure that the findings of both the Courts below do not suffer from any perversity.
3. Instead of narrating the facts of the case all over again, it will be more beneficial to extract from the earlier judgment the narration of facts and the manner in which the matter came up before this Court in the earlier round of Second Appeals:
a. Let us take up S.A. No. 757/90, It arises out of O.S.No. 8119/79. It is for permanent injunction restraining the defendants Chinnaraju Reddiar and Ambal Traders from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the suit property in S.No. 88 at ¹ Ekkaduthangal, Madras more fully set out in the schedule to the plaint. However, the plaint was subsequently amended by adding a prayer for a declaration that the plaintiffs were the absolute owners of the said, land. The averments as set out in the plaint are as under:
b. The suit property originally belonged to one Pachaiyappa Naicker who sold the same to his wife Poongavanam Ammal by a registered sale deed dated 31-9-1930. After the death of Poongavanam Ammal her daughters, the plaintiffs in the suit as her only legal representatives surviving, inherited the property. Originally pachalappa Naicker and subsequent to him, his wife Poongavanam Ammal and after her death, the plaintiffs were in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property. Patta also stood in the name of the first plaintiff. The suit property was part of a larger extent of 2 acres 58 cents in S. No. 88. The first defendant had entered into an agreement with he second defendant to lay out and sell the land on 27-3-1975 and was making attempts to dispossess the plaintiffs and dispose of the suit property to third parties and put them in possession. The plaintiffs prevented the same. On 10-10-1979 the second defendant made an attempt to commit trespass and lay out the land by putting up boundary stones dividing the lands into several plots. The Plaintiffs remonstrated and prevented the
