Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
Pon Esakki - Appellant
Versus
Muthulakshmi & Another - Respondents
S.A.(MD).No. 437 of 2019 & C.M.P.(MD).No. 8714 of 2019
Decided On : 17-03-2023
Second Appeal - Property Dispute - Transfer of Property Act - [Section 100 of CPC] - [O.S.No.20 of 2010, A.S.No.77 of 2014] - The court discussed the validity of the sale deed, the ownership of the suit schedule property, and the rights of the appellant/second defendant as a bonafide purchaser. The court also considered the provisions of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act and the conditions required for attracting it. The judgment confirmed the findings of the Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court, holding that the first respondent/plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and is entitled to the relief of declaration and recovery of possession.
Fact of the Case:
The suit was filed for declaration that the first respondent/plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for recovery of possession. The appellant/second defendant claimed to be a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration. The Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court held in favor of the first respondent/plaintiff, confirming her ownership and granting the relief of declaration and recovery of possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first respondent/plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and is entitled to the relief of declaration and recovery of possession. The substantial questions of law were answered against the appellant/second defendant, and the Second Appeal was dismissed.
Issues: The issues revolved around the ownership of the suit schedule property, the validity of the sale deed, and the rights of the appellant/second defendant as a bonafide purchaser. The court also considered the applicability of Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the first respondent/plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and is entitled to the relief of declaration and recovery of possession. The court also discussed the conditions required for attracting Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act and found that the appellant/second defendant did not satisfy these conditions.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, and the appellant/second defendant was advised to proceed against the husband of the plaintiff if she suffered damages due to the sale executed in her favor. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 09.04.2019 passed in A.S.No.77 of 2014 on the file of Honourable Sub Court, Thoothukudi confirming the Judgment and decree dated 05.06.2014 passed in O.S.No.20 of 2010 on the file of the Honourable District Munsif Court, Thoothukudi.)
This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The second defendant in the suit in O.S.No.20 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Thoothukudi is the appellant herein. The first respondent is the plaintiff and the second respondent is the first defendant in the said suit. The suit was filed for declaration that the first respondent/plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and also for recovery of possession.
2. The first respondent/plaintiff claimed ownership of the suit schedule property by virtue of a sale deed dated 31.07.1988 marked as Ex.A1 before the Trial Court. The plaintiff and her husband Muniyasamy had a strained relationship. According to the plaintiff, though Muniyasamy, her husband is not the owner of the suit schedule property, he had executed a power of attorney in favour of the second respondent dated 19.11.2001 marked as Ex.B3 and thereafter, the said power agent has executed a sale deed dated 22.09.2006 in favour of the appellant/second defendant. The first respondent/plaintiff claimed that the sale deed executed by the second respondent/first defendant in favour of the appellant/second defendant is null and void. In such circumstances, a suit was filed for declaration and for recovery of possession from the appellant/second defendant.
3. Before the Trial Court, the appellant/second defendant took a stand that she is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration in respect of the suit schedule property. Before the Trial Court, five documents were filed by the first respondent/plaintiff and the same were marked as exhibits A1 to A5. On the side of the first respondent/plaintiff, two witnesses were also examined, namely, the first respondent/plaintiff as well as another witness, P.W.2 by name, Thanes. On the side of the appellant/second defendant, six documents were filed and the same were marked as exhibits B1 to B6. Four witnesses were also examined on the side of the appellant/second defendant, namely, the appellant/second defendant and three other witnesses, D.W.2, the attesting witness to the sale deed by name Aathisamy, D.W.3, the Office Assistant in the Sub-Registrar''s office and D.W.4, Arockiyasamy, a Sub Inspector in the Fisheries Department. Through the Sub Inspector of Fisheries Department (D.W.4), two documents were marked as exhibits X1 and X2.
4. The Trial Court, after giving due consideration to the oral and documentary evidence available on record, has held that the first respondent/plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property based on Ex.A1, namely, the registered sale deed bearing Document No.505 of 1988 standing in the name of the first respondent/plaintiff. The encumbrance certificate for the suit schedule property was also filed by the first respondent/plaintiff and the same was marked as Ex.A2, which is dated 12.02.2007. The Trial Court has also considered the same and has rightly held that the first respondent/plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property based on the sale deed dated 31.07.1988 (Ex.A1) referred to supra.
5. The first respondent/plaintiff has also pleaded in the plaint that for a period of nine years, she did not visit the suit schedule property and therefore, she was not aware of the fraudulent sale effected in favour of the appellant/second defendant on 22.09.2006. The plaintiff also has contended that immediately after coming to know about the sale in the year 2009, she had sent a legal notice to the appellant/second defendant calling upon her to vacate and hand over possession of the suit schedule property to her. A
The central legal point established in the judgment is the ownership of the suit schedule property and the rights of the appellant/second defendant as a bonafide purchaser. The court also clarified t....
The validity and consequences of a sale deed, including the transfer of title and possession, must be raised and challenged within the statutory time limit to be considered valid.
In property disputes, the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish ownership through valid documentation, and appellate courts uphold concurrent findings unless legally erroneous.
The burden to prove title in a property dispute lies with the plaintiff, requiring evidence such as a registered sale deed, even when seeking alternative relief of possession.
Failure to seek a declaration of title when there is a cloud over the ownership, and lack of proof of possession can lead to the dismissal of a suit for permanent injunction.
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
