Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C. KUMARAPPAN, J.
M. Kandasamy (Died) – Appellant
Versus
Arumuga Gounder (Died) – Respondent
S.A. No. 810 of 2009
Decided On : 09-07-2024
CPC - Property Dispute - Order 41 Rule 31 - The court emphasized the necessity for the First Appellate Court to comply with procedural requirements in framing points for determination, highlighting the importance of substantial compliance in ensuring fair adjudication.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs purchased property in 1990 and claimed possession against the defendants, who disputed the title and ownership, leading to a suit for declaration and injunction. The Trial Court ruled against the plaintiffs, a decision upheld by the First Appellate Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the First Appellate Court had not erred in its judgment, as it had considered all relevant evidence and reached a conclusion that the plaintiffs did not establish their title over the suit property.
Issues: Whether the First Appellate Court properly dismissed the suit without adequately considering key evidence and whether it complied with procedural requirements under Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the First Appellate Court's failure to frame specific points for determination did not invalidate its judgment, as it had substantially complied with the requirements of Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC.
Result: The Second Appeal is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
C. KUMARAPPAN, J.
1. As per the order of My Lord The Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice dated 12.06.2024, this Second Appeal has been listed before this Court.
2. The plaintiffs before the Trial Court are the appellants herein. After the demise of the first appellant, the appellants 3 and 4 were arrayed as the legal representatives of the first appellant. The defendants are arrayed as the respondents 1 and 2. After the demise of the first respondent, his legal heirs were added as the 3rd respondent.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to according to their litigative status before the Trial Court.
4. The brief facts which give rise to the instant Second Appeal is that the plaintiffs purchased the suit property by virtue of a Sale Deed dated 28.03.1990 from one Ganapathi Udayar, Son of Thangamuthu Udayar. Ever since the date of purchase, the plaintiffs have been in actual, physical possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is the submission of the plaintiffs that except on the Northern side, all the three sides of the suit property are bounded by the property belongs to the defendants. Since the plaintiffs' property situates between the defendants' property, they requested the plaintiffs to sell the suit property. Since the plaintiffs refused to sell the property, the defendants started interfering with the possession of the plaintiffs and attempted to obliterate the ridges and also attempted to plough the land. However, with the intervention of the well-wishers, the illegal attempt of the defendants was thwarted. Since the defendants have been interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs and also disputing the title over the suit property, it necessitated the plaintiff to come forward with a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction.
5. The said suit was resisted by the 2nd defendant by contending that the suit property is comprised in S.F. Nos.234/1 and 234/2. It is the submission of the defendants that the entire suit property of S.F. Nos.234/1 and 234/2 were belongs to the children of one Arthanari Gounder. He has got 4 children by name 1. Marappa Gounder, 2. Chellappa Gounder, 3.Chinna Marappa Gounder and 4. Rangasamy Gounder. It is the further submission of this defendant that each one of them are entitled to have 1/4th common share. It is the submission of this defendant that one of the brother Chinna Marappa Gounder sold his common 1/4th share i.e., 1.44 acres to one Kaliappa Gounder and Krishna Gounder vide Sale Deed dated 19.06.1950. The said Krishna Gounder is the alleged vendor of the plaintiffs under the sale date dated 02.05.1988. According to this defendant, under Exs.B4, B9 and B8, Chinna Marappa Gounder and Rangasamy Gounder have sold the properties to Manthrachala Gounder under 3 sale deeds. Likewise, Chellappa Gounder sold the property to Kaliappa Gounder. In turn he sold the property to Karuppammal, who is the wife of Manthrachala Gounder. It is the further submission of the defendants that the entire extent of 5.76 acres comprised in S.F. Nos.234/1 and 234/2 have been purchased by the plaintiff under 2 sale deeds dated 31.08.1986 and 06.07.1998 from Manthrachala Gounder and Karuppammal. It is the submission of this defendant that the alleged vendor of the plaintiffs viz., Krishna Gounder did not have any right to execute the Sale Deed in favour of the plaintiffs. Therefore, the sale deed, which has been projected by the plaintiff, was executed by a person, who has no title over the suit property. Thus, this defendant states that the suit property is the absolute property of this defendant and the plaintiffs cannot have any remedy against this defendant. Hence, this defendant prayed to dismiss the suit.
6. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiffs have examined 3 witnesses as PW1 to PW3 and marked 9 documents as Exs.A1 to A9. On behalf of the defendants, one witness was examined as DW1 and 29 documents have been marked as Exs.B1 to B29.
7. After having co
The First Appellate Court's compliance with procedural requirements under Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC is essential for ensuring fair adjudication, even if specific points for determination are not framed....
The appellate court must independently assess evidence and provide detailed reasoning in its decision, failing which the judgment is procedural error.
The appellate courts must adhere to procedural mandates, ensuring independent evaluation and reasoned findings, as failure to do so renders judgments unsustainable.
Compliance with the provisions of Order 41 Rule 31 of the CPC is mandatory for the appellate court before deciding the appeal on its merits.
First Appellate Court is last Court to decide factual aspects of case – First Appellate Court can reconsider all questions of fact and law dealt by Trial Court.
First appellate courts must thoroughly review evidence and provide reasoned judgments; failure to do so necessitates remanding cases for reevaluation.
A suit for injunction is not maintainable if the plaintiff has knowledge of unclear title issues and the vendors lack the right to convey property.
The First Appellate Court correctly reversed the trial court's decree due to insufficient evidence from the plaintiffs to establish title over the suit property.
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
