The court affirmed that a Sale Deed is valid only for the share owned by the vendor, and a party can challenge findings of a lower court even without filing a cross-appeal.

JUDGMENT :

This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated February 26, 2018 passed in A.S.No.10 of 2017 by the 'Subordinate Court, Ulundurpet' ['First Appellate Court' for brevity], whereby the Judgment and Decree dated July 24, 2015 passed in O.S.No.365 of 2011 by the 'Principal District Munsif Court, Ulundurpet' ['Trial Court' for brevity] was confirmed.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

PLAINTIFF'S CASE

3. The Suit Property originally belonged to Arunachala Reddiar, Lakshminarayana Reddiar and their minor brother - Venkatesan. Arunachala Reddiar was the guardian of his minor brother - Venkatesan. All of them were in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property and later, it was sold to the plaintiff through a registered Sale Deed dated March 15, 1983. Based on the Sale Deed, the plaintiff obtained patta in his name and paid taxes. The plaintiff has been in possession of the Suit Property for over 12 years. Accordingly, the plaintiff claims prescriptive rights over the same as well.

3.1. According to the plaintiff, the defendant has no right in the Suit Property. Further, it was falsely alleged by the defendant that on December 30, 1999, Arunachala Reddiar and his family members collusively executed a Sale Agreement in favour of the defendant and that the defendant filed a case in O.S.No.142 of 2004 for specific performance of the said Sale Agreement and obtained an ex-parte Decree in his favour. Neither the plaintiff nor the erstwhile owner, who sold the Suit Property to him, were parties to the above said Suit. Furthermore, since the Suit Property had already been sold to the plaintiff in the year 1983 itself, the alleged Sale Deed said to have been executed in the year 1999 is invalid. The ex-parte Decree obtained by the defendant was based on false claims and hence, it is null and void.

3.2. Further when the defendant attempted to trespass into the Suit Property on December 19, 2011 under the pretext of having Decree in his favour, the plaintiff prevented him from doing so. Therefore, the plaintiff sought for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the defendant.

DEFENDANT'S CASE

4. The defendant filed written statement denying the allegations made by the plaintiff in the plaint. According to the defendant, the Suit Property and some other properties originally belonged to Vijayaram Reddiar. Since Vijayaram Reddiar failed to pay the dues to the Government, the Suit Property was declared as government-owned barren land vide Proceedings No.A6/50268/1968 dated December 3, 1968 of the Revenue Divisional Officer, Thirukovilur. After the demise of Vijayaram Reddiar, his heirs including Arunachala Reddiar, settled the dues and applied for re-assignment of the land. Subsequently, on October 12, 1999, after due enquiry, the land was re-assigned to the heirs of Vijayaram Reddiar.

4.1. Thereafter, on December 30, 1999, Vijayaram Reddiar’s heirs entered into a Sale Agreement with the defendant, agreeing to sell the Suit Property and some other properties for Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only), of which Rs.98,000/- was paid. Though the defendant repeatedly insisted on the registration of Sale Deed after receiving the balance sale consideration, Vijayaram Reddiar’s heirs delayed the process. Therefore, the defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.61 of 2000 on the file of Sub Court, Villupuram for specific performance, which was later transferred to Munsif Court, Villupuram and renumbered as O.S.No.142 of 2004, which resulted in an ex-parte Decree in favour of the defendant on January 30, 2006.

4.2. Further, vide Execution Petition No. 503 of 2009, the ex-parte Decree was executed and consequently, a Sale Deed was executed in favour of the defendant. The defendant also filed Execution Petition No.47 of 2011 seeking recovery of possession and accordingly, the possession of the Suit Property was delivered to him on January 5, 2012. A