Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
P. VELMURUGAN, J.
P. Raman & Another – Appellants
Versus
C. Ammasi & Others – Respondents
S.A. No. 1772 of 2002 & C.M.P. No. 15123 of 2002
Decided On : 07-06-2023
Second Appeal - Code of Civil Procedure - Ancestral Properties - S. 100 - [ANCESTRAL PROPERTIES] - [Code of Civil Procedure] - [Section 100] - The court discussed the issue of ancestral properties and the burden of proof on the plaintiffs to establish their title and possession over the suit properties. The court emphasized the importance of proving genealogy and continuous possession to claim ancestral properties. The court found that the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove their ancestral title and continuous possession, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants claimed that the suit properties were their ancestral properties and filed a suit for declaration and injunction. They alleged that the respondents interfered with their possession and executed sham documents. The respondents denied the appellants' ancestral claim and asserted their own title and possession over the properties.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants failed to prove their ancestral title and continuous possession of the suit properties. It emphasized the lack of sufficient evidence to establish genealogy and continuous possession, leading to the dismissal of the suit by the lower appellate court, which was upheld in the second appeal.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the ancestral properties claimed by the appellants, the burden of proof on the plaintiffs to establish their title and possession, and the validity of the documents presented by both parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to establish their ancestral title and continuous possession. It emphasized the importance of proving genealogy and continuous possession to claim ancestral properties. The court found that the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove their ancestral title and continuous possession, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower appellate court's decision to dismiss the suit. The court found no merit in the appeal and concluded that the appellants failed to prove their ancestral title and continuous possession of the suit properties.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2001 in A.S.No.170 of 1999 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge at Sivagangai reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.07.1999 in O.S.No.180/98 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif at Sivagangai.)
1. The appellants are plaintiffs in O.S.No.180/98 on the file of the Principal District Munsif at Sivagangai. The said suit was decreed by judgment and decree dated 30.07.1999, against which, the respondents herein filed appeal in A.S.No.170/99 on the file of the Principal District Court, Sivagangai. The said appeal was allowed by judgment and decree dated 28.11.2001, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. As against the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court, the appellants/plaintiffs filed the present second appeal. While admitting the second appeal, this Court has formulated the following substantial questions of law:-
''''1. Whether the first appellate Court is correct in reversing the judgment of the trial Court, especially the original patta stood in the name of Thothanangiri''s son Lakshmanan and the defendants who relied upon the certified copy did not claim that their forefather''s name is Thothanagiri?
2. Whether the first appellate Court is correct in reversing the judgment of the trial Court on an erroneous consideration of the original settlement patta Ex.A7 and the certified copy of the same settlement patta issued by the same office in respect of the same extent of the property in S.No.22/5 in Kayankulam Village?
3. Whether the reasons given by the first appellate Court in not relying upon Ex.A7 is correct in law and fact of the case?''''
2. The case of the appellants is that the suit properties are their ancestral properties originally belonged to one Sorakkattai @ Thothanagiri @ Raman. After his demise, his son Lakshmanan inherited the suit properties and after the death of the said Lakshmanan, his sons namely, Perumal/father of the 1st appellant and Nachan/2nd appellant inherited the suit properties. After the demise of his father, the 1st appellant inherited his share. Thereafter, the appellants 1 and 2 were jointly enjoying the suit properties by oral partition, by which, eastern portion of the suit properties was allotted to the 1st appellant and western portion was allotted to the 2nd appellant. After the said oral partition, the appellants were enjoying their respective portions separately and they have also prescriptive title by adverse possession. According to the appellants, except them, no other persons are having any right and title over the suit properties. However, without their knowledge, wrongly, the name of A.Lakshmanan Vagaiyara was mentioned in the patta instead of mentioning the names of the grandfather of the 1st appellant and father of the 2nd appellant and taking advantage of the same, the respondents 1 to 3 executed a sham and nominal sale deed in respect of the suit properties in favour of the 4th respondent. Thereafter, on 07.10.1998, all the respondents tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the appellants over the suit properties. Therefore, the appellants issued a notice to the respondents on 26.10.1998. On receipt of the same, the respondents sent a reply dated 11.11.1998 with false allegations. Subsequently, the respondents tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the appellants from 15.11.1998. Therefore, the appellants were constrained to file the suit initially for permanent injunction subsequently the same was amended for declaration and permanent injunction. After trial, the trial Court appreciated both oral and documentary evidence and decreed the suit. However, when the respondents filed appeal before the first appellate court, the first appellate court dismissed the suit and al
The burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to establish their ancestral title and continuous possession. Proof of genealogy and continuous possession is crucial to claim ancestral properties.
A permanent injunction can be granted against a co-owner if the plaintiffs establish their possession and enjoyment of the property, despite the defendant's claims.
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....
Possession established by parties through revenue documents prevails over contested ownership claims; mere sale deed insufficient to negate established rights.
The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to establish that the properties are ancestral, and evidence must be pleaded and proved through evidence.
The burden of proof lies with the party claiming partition to establish the division of properties, and the court may allow additional evidence if vital to decide the case.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the presentation of revenue documents alone is not sufficient to establish title over ancestral property, and the burden of proof lies with th....
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
