Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.S. SUNDAR, J.
L. Duraivel & Another – Appellants
Versus
N. Padmavathy & Others – Respondents
SA.No. 732 of 2017 & CMP.No. 18484 of 2017
Decided On : 05-06-2023
Sale Deed - Property Dispute - CPC - [DECLARATION, PERMANENT INJUNCTION] - [Section 100 of CPC] - The court discussed the ownership of the suit property, the validity of the Sale Deed, and the entitlement of the plaintiffs for relief of permanent injunction and declaration. The court highlighted the importance of revenue records, possession, and the lack of evidence from the defendants to prove their claim, leading to the decision in favor of the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants, claiming ownership of the suit property and challenging a Sale Deed executed by the defendants. The Trial Court decreed the suit, but the Lower Appellate Court reversed the decision, leading to the Second Appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants had established their legitimate right over the suit property based on revenue records, possession, and other statutory documents. The defendants failed to provide concrete evidence to support their claim, and the Sale Deed was deemed null and void. The court held that the appellants were entitled to the relief of permanent injunction and declaration, despite not explicitly praying for a declaration of their title.
Issues: The issues revolved around the ownership of the suit property, the validity of the Sale Deed, the entitlement of the plaintiffs for relief of permanent injunction and declaration, and the reversal of the Trial Court's judgment by the Lower Appellate Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the appellants' establishment of legitimate right through revenue records and possession, the lack of evidence from the defendants to prove their claim, and the entitlement of the appellants for relief of permanent injunction and declaration despite not explicitly praying for a declaration of their title.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree of the Lower Appellate Court were set aside, decreeing the suit in favor of the appellants.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2017 made in AS.No.22/2016 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurantakam, reversing the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2016 made in OS.No.192/2011 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Madurantakam.)
(1) Plaintiffs in the suit in OS.No.192/2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurantakam, are the appellants in the above Second Appeal.
(2) The appellants/plaintiffs are the sons of late Sri.P.Loganatha Gramani. The appellants filed the suit in OS.No.192/2011 for declaration, declaring the Sale Deed dated 10.02.2011 executed by defendants 1 and 2 in favour of 3rd defendant and registered as Doc.No.505/2011 on the file of Sub Registrar Office, Cheyyur, as null and void and not binding on plaintiffs and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants in the suit and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs over the suit property.
(3) The suit property is an extent of 27 cents with a house and land along with trees and passage in S.No.189/4A comprising in old Patta No.396, new Patta No.1122 in Vennangupattu Village, Kadapakkam Firka, Cheyyur Taluk, Kancheepuram District.
(4) The case of the appellants in the plaint is that they are the absolute owners of the suit property. The suit property is described in the plaint with reference to boundaries on all four sides. It is the specific case of plaintiffs that the suit property is their ancestral property in which they have built up a superstructure and paying house tax and having electricity connection for so many decades. It is further stated that the plaintiffs are in enjoyment of the property without any interference from any quarters for several decades and the revenue records also stands in the name of Sri.Loganatha Gramani who is the father of plaintiffs. The Patta Passbook in the name of plaintiffs- grandfather and their father are also filed along with plaint. It is also the case of plaintiffs that defendants 1 and 2 in order to grab the suit property belonged to plaintiffs, created a bogus Sale Deed dated 10.02.2011 in favour of 3rd defendant fraudulently without any title or possession. Stating that the defendants tried to interfere with the plaintiffs- possession by preventing them from removing the wind fallen trees and the local police did not take any action due to pressure and influence of the defendants, the plaintiffs filed the above suit for a declaration, declaring the Sale Deed dated 10.02.2011 as null and void and not binding on plaintiffs and for permanent injunction.
(5) The suit was resisted by defendants 1 and 2. The 1st defendant filed a written statement, adopted by the 2nd defendant, specifically denying all the plaint averments. It was contended by the 1st defendant that the plaintiffs have not impleaded other legal heirs of their father Loganatha Gramani and that the suit is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed for non joinder of necessary parties. It is also contended by defendants 1 and 2 that the entire extent of 1.98 acres in S.No.189/4 belonged to T.Manickam, T.Velu, V.Sadaiyan, V.Krishnan, R.Marimuthu, R.Chinnan, C.Munusamy, C.Varadhappan, P.Kanthasigamani, S.Devarajan and S.Sengazhani. Though it is stated that one T.Manickam and T.Velu who are sons of Thandia Gramani are entitled to 1/6th share, it is contended that T.Manickam alone was given 1/6th share in the suit survey number. Sri.Loganatha Gramani is referred to as one of the sons of Sri.Velu. It is further contended that Manickam sold his share to one Munusamy and therefore, plaintiffs have no right. Defendants 1 to 4 came forward with a different story claiming title to the property through one Kanthasigamani without any pleading as to how the said Kanthasigamani got title.
(6) Defendants 3 and 4 filed a written statement which is nothing but the replica of the written statement filed by the 1st defendant.
(
The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of revenue records and possession in establishing legitimate right over the property, the lack of evidence from the defendants ....
A suit for permanent injunction is not maintainable without seeking a declaration of title when the plaintiff's title to the property is in dispute or under a cloud. The grant of patta and reliance o....
Mere entries in revenue records do not confer title; to maintain a suit for declaration, a party must also seek possession.
In a suit for permanent injunction, if the plaintiff establishes title, a reasonable presumption of lawful possession can be drawn. The defendant's challenge to the title must be examined to determin....
A suit for permanent injunction requires proof of possession; if title is disputed, a declaratory suit is necessary, and failure to include necessary parties renders the suit untenable.
Permanent injunction cannot be granted without establishing title or possession; prior decrees do not confer title if not adjudicated.
Ownership must be substantiated by credible documentary evidence; mere revenue entries are insufficient to establish title against documented claims.
Possession established by parties through revenue documents prevails over contested ownership claims; mere sale deed insufficient to negate established rights.
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
