Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Mad) 1667

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
Pushpa - Appellant
Versus
Vasantha & Others - Respondent
Second Appeal No. 445 of 2012
Decided On : 29-04-2022

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:P. Mani, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1 to R3, V. Raghavachari, Advocate.

The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title, and discrepancies in evidence can influence the court's decision.

Headnote:
Family Arrangement - Property Dispute - [Code of Civil Procedure, Section 100] - [Evidence Act, Section 3, Section 101] - [The Transfer of Property Act, Section 54] - The court discussed the family arrangement and the evidence presented regarding the oral partition, possession, and enjoyment of the suit properties. The interpretation of the evidence and its discrepancies influenced the court's decision to dismiss the Second Appeal.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff claimed title and possession of suit properties based on an oral partition and a sale deed. The defendants contested, alleging a family arrangement and possession of the properties.
Finding of the Court:

The Trial Court decreed the suit, but the Lower Appellate Court reversed the decision, finding discrepancies in the evidence presented by the plaintiff and the lack of substantial proof of possession and enjoyment. The court also noted that the plaintiff should have sought the relief of partition.
Issues: Discrepancies in evidence, possession and enjoyment of properties, family arrangement, burden of proof, and relief sought.
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff failed to prove possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and should have sought the relief of partition. The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal is dismissed, and no costs are awarded.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 24.03.2011 passed in A.S.No.30 of 2010, on the file of the Sub Court, Dharmapuri in reversing the judgement and decree dated 25.03.2010 passed in O.S.No.63 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palacode.)

1. The plaintiff is the appellant in this Second Appeal.

2. The plaintiff was born to one Kemban through his first wife. The 1st defendant is the second wife of the said Kemban and the 2nd and 3rd defendants are the children of the 1st defendant. The 4th defendant is the aunt and the 5th defendant is the son-in-law of the 4th defendant.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit properties were allotted to the share of the grandmother of the plaintiff in a oral partition held between Kemban and the grandmother of the plaintiff Akkumari. The said Akkumari sold the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff through a registered sale deed dated 17.4.2006, marked as Ex.A1. The further case of the plaintiff is that she was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties immediately after it was sold in her favour.

4. The grievance of the plaintiff is that the defendants do not have any right over the suit properties and they were trying to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Hence the suit was filed seeking for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction.

5. The defendants 1 to 3 filed a written statement. They took a stand that the suit properties were the ancestral properties of one Siddhan and the above said Akkumari was the wife of Siddhan. The above said Kemban was the son of Siddhan and Akkumari and the 4th defendant is their daughter. It was further pleaded that the said Siddhan and Kemban enjoyed the suit properties and other properties in common and Siddhan died in the year 1995. On his death, Kemban and the 1st defendant were enjoying the suit properties and other properties. The above said Akkumari was maintained by Kemban and after him, by the 1st defendant. Accordingly, the defendants took a stand that Akkumari does not have any right over the suit properties and other properties.

6. It was further stated by the defendants that during the year 2004, there was a family arrangement and the suit properties were allotted to the share of defendants 1 to 3 and the plaintiff was given a property measuring an extent of 52 cents in Survey No. 354/3A. Thereafter, defendants 1 to 3 were also granted patta for the suit property. It is alleged that Akkumari colluded with the plaintiff and created the sale deed which according to the defendants, is a sham and nominal document. On all these grounds, defendants 1 to 3 sought for the dismissal of the suit.

7. The Trial Court on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after analysing the oral and documentary evidence, was pleased to decree the suit as prayed for through Judgment and Decree dated 25.3.2010. Aggrieved by the same, defendants 1 to 3 filed an appeal in A.S. No. 30 of 2010. The Lower Appellate Court on re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and after considering the findings of the Trial Court, allowed the appeal through Judgment and Decree dated 24.3.2011 and thereby set aside the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has filed this Second Appeal.

8. Heard Mr.P.Mani, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.V.Raghavachari, learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3. This Court carefully went through the materials available on record and the findings of both the Courts below.

9. The Trial Court found that Akkumari was allotted the suit properties in the family arrangement between Kemban and Akkumari and she was in possession and enjoyment of the property and therefore, Akkumari had the right and title to sell the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff through Ex.A1 sale deed.

10. The Trial Court also gave a finding to the eff

Click Here to Read the rest of this document