Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBRAMANIAN, R. SAKTHIVEL, JJ.
L. Chandrakumar and Others – Appellants
Versus
S. Prema and Others – Respondents
O.S.A. Nos. 61, 95 of 2022, C.M.P. No. 4715 of 2022, C.M.P. Nos. 4699, 4704, 26248, 26254 of 2023
Decided On : 14-03-2024
JUDGMENT : Appeal - Property Dispute - Code of Civil Procedure - Order XXII Rule 4, Order XX Rule 5, Order II Rule 2, Order III Rule 2, Order 41 Rule 27 - The judgment discusses the requirement of proving core facts in a property dispute, the admissibility of evidence, and the consequences of non-compliance with procedural rules.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved two suits, one for declaration of title to a property and the other for recovery of possession. The first suit was based on the claim that the property was purchased using funds contributed by the plaintiff, while the second suit was filed by a purchaser from the power agent of the defendant in the first suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first plaintiff failed to prove the core facts of the case, leading to the dismissal of the first suit. However, the second suit for recovery of possession was decreed in favor of the plaintiff.
Issues: The issues revolved around the ownership of the property, the validity of the power of attorney and sale deed, and the entitlement to recovery of possession.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasized the need to prove core facts in a property dispute and discussed the admissibility of evidence and the consequences of non-compliance with procedural rules.
Final Decision: The judgment set aside the previous decision and remitted the matter for fresh disposal, allowing the parties to produce only the evidence sought to be placed before the court.
JUDGMENT :
R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.
Prayer: Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Madras High Court Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent 1865, praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2022 passed by this Court in C.S. No. 677 of 2010. In OSA No. 95 of 2022 Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of Madras High Court Original Side Rules read with Clause 15 of the Letters Patent 1865, praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2022 passed by this Court in C.S. No. 852 of 2009.
1. It is reported that the second respondent in OSA No. 95 of 2002 is no more. It is seen from the records that the second respondent in OSA No. 95 of 2022 who figured as the second defendant in C.S. No. 852 of 2009 remained ex-parte before the Trial Court. Hence, exercising power under Order XXII Rule 4 Sub-Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure, the appellant is exempt from the necessity of substituting the legal representatives of the second respondent in OSA No. 95 of 2022.
2. Challenge in these appeals is to the common judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated 31.01.2022 rendered in C.S. No. 677 of 2010 and C.S. No. 852 of 2009.
3. The facts that are necessary for disposal of these appeals are as follows:
3.1. The first suit namely C.S. No. 852 of 2009 is a suit for declaration of the plaintiffs title to the suit schedule property; declaration that the power of attorney dated 24.05.2006 executed by the first defendant (father of the plaintiffs) in favour of the second and third defendants as null and void; for a declaration that the sale deed dated 05.01.2007 executed by the defendants 2 and 3 as Power Agents of the first defendant as null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs; and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs.
3.2. The case of the plaintiffs in the said suit viz. C.S. No. 852 of 2009 was that the suit property was purchased by the first defendant in the said suit in his name from and out of the moneys that were contributed by the first plaintiff in the said suit and therefore, the property belongs to the plaintiffs and the first defendant held it only for the benefit of the plaintiffs.
3.3. Even during the pendency of the first suit in C.S. No. 852 of 2009, the fourth defendant in C.S. No. 852 of 2009 who had purchased the property from the Power Agent of the first defendant in the said suit had filed a suit for recovery of possession in C.S. No. 677 of 2010 based on the Sale Deed which was impugned in C.S. No. 852 of 2009.
3.4. Both the suits were tried together. As many as six issues were framed in C.S. No. 852 of 2009, while five issues were framed in C.S. No. 677 of 2010 and they are as follows:
|
| C.S. No. 852 of 2009 | C.S. No. 677 of 2010 |
| 1. | Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a declaration that the plaintiffs are the real owners of the suit schedule property? | Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get recovery of possession of the suit schedule property from the defendants? |
| 2. | Whether the suit schedule property in C.S. No. 852 of 2009 is the self-acquired property of the 1st defendant? | Whether the suit is hit by Order II Rule 2 of CPC? |
| 3. | Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for declaration declaring the power of attorney dated 24.05.2006 executed by the first defendant to and in favour of second and third defendants as null and void? | Whether there is jural relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendants? |
| 4. | Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a declaration declaring the sale-deed dated 05.01.2007 executed by the second and third defendants in favour of he fourth defendant registered as Document No. 30 of 2007 as null and void? | As to what relief the plaintiff is entitled to? |
| 5. | Wheth | |
AI
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove core facts in a property dispute and the consequences of non-compliance with procedural rules.
A plaintiff may maintain a subsequent suit if it is based on a distinct cause of action; simply being aware of prior transactions does not preclude independent claims for relief.
The court established that adherence to procedural rules in appellate proceedings is essential, and failure to provide an opportunity for rebuttal to additional evidence constitutes a jurisdictional ....
The mandatory requirement to formulate substantial questions of law for admitting and maintaining a second appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C. and the need for the bar under Order II Rule 2 to be ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a plaintiff's attempt to set aside a final decree after a prolonged period of silence can be deemed vexatious and illusory, and the plea of re....
The bar under Order II Rule 2 CPC does not apply when a second suit is based on a distinct cause of action arising from subsequent events, such as the lifting of a government ban on property registra....
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
