IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.S. SUNDAR, J.
A. Narayanan - Appellant
Versus
Rajkumar Sethupathy & Ors. - Respondents
S.A. No. 325 of 2022 & C.M.P. No. 6802 of 2022
Decided On : 08-06-2023
Fraudulent Will - Property Dispute - Indian Evidence Act, Patta Passbook Act - [FRAUDULENT WILL] - [PROPERTY DISPUTE] - [Indian Evidence Act, Patta Passbook Act]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration of ownership of a property and other reliefs based on a compromise memo recorded in a previous proceeding. The appellant, a subsequent purchaser, denied the plaintiff's title and claimed possession of the property.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court dismissed the suit, relying on a fraudulent Will and documents produced by the appellant. The appellate court reversed the decision, holding that the plaintiff had proved his title and the appellant had no legal right to the property.
Issues: The main issues were the validity of the Will, the plaintiff's title to the property, and the appellant's possession and title based on subsequent purchase.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the Will relied upon by the appellant was fraudulent and not proven. It also held that the plaintiff's title was established based on a compromise memo and that the appellant had no valid claim to the property.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, affirming the appellate court's decision in favor of the plaintiff.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.4 of 2015 by the Principal District Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu, dated 23.10.2021, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.97 of 2009 by the Sub-Court, Tambaram, dated 13.06.2014.)
1. The 8th defendant in the suit in O.S.No.97 of 2009 on the file of Sub-Court, Tambaram, is the appellant in the above Second Appeal.
2. The 1st respondent in this Second Appeal, as plaintiff, filed the suit in O.S.No.97 of 2009 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tambaram, for a declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property measuring an extent of 1 Acre and 8 Cents as per document and 1 Acre and 19 Cents as per enjoyment in No.148, Okkium Thoraipakkam Village, Saidapet Taluk; for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property; for an injunction restraining the Sub-Registrar, Neelankarai, the 6th defendant in the suit, from completing the formalities of registering the fraudulent sale deed, dated 12.01.2000, executed by the 2nd defendant through his Power of Attorney Agents defendants 3 to 5 in favour of 1st defendant and handing over the same to the 1st defendant; for a mandatory injunction directing the 7th defendant in the suit, namely the Tahsildar, to transfer the patta originally in favour of Mrs.Kamala Devi in the name of plaintiff, and for costs.
3. Brief facts that are set out in the plaint filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff are as follows :
3.1. The suit property measuring an extent of 1.08 Acres comprised in four different Survey Fields belonged to his aunt Late Mrs.Kamala Devi, who is the elder sister of his mother Mrs.Leela Devi. The suit property was purchased by Late Mrs.Kamala Devi by virtue of four different sale deeds in the year 1982 and Mrs.Kamala Devi obtained patta in her name and was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property during her lifetime.
3.2. The plaintiff's aunt Late Mrs.Kamala Devi died on 15.03.1991 at Vijaya Hospital and the death was registered with the Corporation of Madras on 18.03.1991. The husband of Late Mrs.Kamala Devi predeceased her and they were issueless. Mrs.Kamala Devi, prior to her death, had executed a Will dated 18.02.1991 and the said Will was registered as Document No.7 of 1991 before the District Registrar, Central Madras, on 18.02.1991, in the presence of witnesses. Under the said Will, plaintiff was appointed as Executor to carry out the directions in the said Will. In the registered Will, Mrs.Kamala Devi bequeathed all her properties to her niece and nephews. The plaintiff filed O.P.No.443 of 1991 before this Court for grant of probate of the Will. The younger sister of Late Mrs.Kamala Devi, by name Rukmani Devi, filed a caveat in the High Court and therefore, the petition filed by plaintiff in O.P.No.443 of 1991 for probate was converted as Testamentary Original Suit in T.O.S.No.2 of 1992. Later, all the parties, who were impleaded as legal heirs of the deceased Mrs.Kamala Devi in T.O.S.No.2 of 1992, entered into an arrangement giving effect to the Will with slight modifications and a memorandum of compromise was filed and recorded in T.O.S.No.2 of 1992. The plaintiff was allotted the suit property as found in Schedule-'H' of the order passed in T.O.S.No.2 of 1992, pursuant to the memorandum of compromise. The plaintiff took possession of the property allotted to him and the original title deeds relating to the suit property were handed over to the plaintiff in terms of the order in T.O.S.No.2 of 1992. The plaintiff, thereafter, leveled the land, fixed concrete pillars to demarcate the suit property, after the allotment of property in the year 1993, as per the order in T.O.S.No.2 of 1992, and all the original title deeds relating to the suit property are with the plaintiff.
3.3. Later, plaintiff
The main legal point established is that a fraudulent Will cannot be relied upon as evidence, and a compromise memo recognizing ownership rights prevails over subsequent purchasers without valid titl....
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 ....
The court emphasized the necessity of proving a Will's validity and the concept of bona fide purchasers, reiterating that the burden lies on the plaintiff to establish title and possession.
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....
Patta and title deed pass books issued under the Act, 1971 carry a presumption of title and possession, and this presumption can only be rebutted through an appeal, revision, or by a court of law.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the court to address crucial issues such as title and possession in property disputes, as mandated by procedural rules.
The distinction between judgment in rem and judgment in personam, and the binding nature of judgment in rem on anyone claiming interest in the property.
A plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must prove both title and settled possession, failing which the claim may be dismissed.
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.
Possession established by parties through revenue documents prevails over contested ownership claims; mere sale deed insufficient to negate established rights.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.