Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Mad) 2107

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.Sakthivel, J.
Chakravarthi Reddiyar and ors. - Appellants
Versus
Kannan – Respondent
S.A.NO.536 OF 2018 AND CMP.NOS. 15024 OF 2018 AND 304 OF 2020
Decided On : 17-12-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy Senior Counsel for M/s.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran
For the Respondent: Mr.N.Suresh

The burden of proof lies on the plaintiffs to establish title over disputed land, which they failed to do, while defendants proved their title through earlier documents.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second Appeal - Plaintiffs challenged concurrent findings of the Trial Court and First Appellate Court regarding title and possession of agricultural land - Courts found defendants established title through earlier Sale Deed and Patta, dismissing plaintiffs' claims. (Paras 6, 10, 16)

(B) Title and Possession - The plaintiffs failed to prove their vendor's title over the Suit Property, while defendants substantiated their claim with prior documents. (Paras 12, 16)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs purchased agricultural land from previous owners and claimed title over a well situated in the land, while defendants asserted their ownership based on earlier deeds and settlement records. (Paras 3, 4)

Findings of Court:
The plaintiffs could not establish their title or possession over the Suit Property, and the defendants' claims were supported by earlier legal documents. (Paras 16)

Issues: Whether the courts were justified in dismissing the plaintiffs' claims based on the evidence presented regarding title and possession. (Paras 7)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiffs failed to prove their vendor's title over the land in question, while the defendants established their title through earlier documents, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. (Paras 16)

Result: Second Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

R.Sakthivel, J.

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated April 5, 2018 passed in A.S.No.12 of 2016 on the file of Additional Subordinate Court, Thindivanam, whereby the Judgment and Decree dated December 4, 2015 passed in O.S.No.527 of 2008 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Thindivanam was confirmed.

This Second Appeal is directed by the plaintiffs in the Original Suit. Challenge is to the Judgment and Decree dated April 5, 2018 passed in A.S.No.12 of 2016 on the file of ‘Additional Subordinate Court, Thindivanam’ [‘First Appellate Court’ for short], whereby the Judgment and Decree dated December 4, 2015 passed in O.S.No.527 of 2008 on the file of ‘Additional District Munsif Court, Thindivanam’ [‘Trial Court’ for short] was confirmed.

2. Hereinafter, for the sake of convenience, the parties will be denoted as per their array in the Original Suit.

CASE OF THE PLAINTIFFS:

3. The Suit land is an agricultural land of an extent of 0.03.0 Hectare in Survey No.94/6 of Karnavur Village. The Suit land and some other properties originally belonged to one Bakthavatchalu Reddiyar, Narayanasamy Reddiyar and Ramu Reddiyar, from whom the plaintiffs purchased the same on September 3, 1998. Since then, the plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the Suit land. Subsequently, they dug the Suit irrigation well therein.

3.1. Survey No.94/5 belongs to the defendants. While so, the defendants made an application to the electricity department seeking electricity connection to the Suit well actually situated in Suit Survey No.94/6 as if it is situated in their land viz., Survey No.94/5. The plaintiffs caused a notice dated August 19, 2008 to the defendants as well as the electricity department raising objection to the defendants’ application. The defendants caused a reply notice with false averments. The defendants are attempting to interfere with the plaintiffs’ peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit Property. Hence, the present suit seeking declaration of title and injunction.

CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS:

4. The first defendant filed written statement and the same was adopted by the second defendant. The defendants’ case is that the defendants purchased 66 Cents out of the total 1 Acre 55 Cents comprised in old Survey No.109/5 within specific four boundaries on October 13, 1967, dug the Suit well therein and have been in possession and enjoyment of the same since then.

4.1. Later, during re-settlement, old Survey No.109/5 was converted into Survey Nos.94/5, 94/6, 94/7, etc., and settlement patta was issued in favour of first defendant in respect of Survey Nos.94/5 [0.18.5 Hectare] and 94/6 [0.03.0 Hectare]. However, in the said patta, while the corresponding old Survey number for new Survey No.94/6 was rightly mentioned as old Survey No.109/5, the corresponding old Survey number for new Survey No.94/5 was wrongly mentioned as old Survey No.109/2 instead of Survey No.109/5.

4.2. Thereafter, while the Suit well is actually situated in Suit Survey No.94/6, under a wrong notion, the defendants applied for electricity connection to the Suit well as if it is situated in Survey No.94/5. This is when the defendants came to know that patta for Suit Survey No.94/6 was wrongly mutated to plaintiffs’ name without any notice. It further came to light that plaintiffs’ vendor, who had no right over Suit Survey No.94/6, wrongly included Suit Survey No.94/6 in the Sale Deed while selling his Survey No.94/7 to the plaintiffs.

4.3. After purchasing Survey No.94/7, the plaintiffs dug up a well in it and have been practicing agriculture using the same. They are in possession and enjoyment of Survey No.94/7 only. The defendants were taking initiatives only to get electricity connection to the Suit well which was dug by them. The Suit Property does not belong to the plaintiffs. Further, the Suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and the Suit is barr