Parties must establish valid title to property; claims based on forged documents or invalid deeds are unsustainable in law.

JUDGMENT :

G.JAYACHANDRAN, J.

1. The above two appeals are against the common judgement dated 23.02.2022, passed by the III Additional District Judge, Puducherry in O.S.No.51 of 2015 and in O.S.No.38 of 2017 (formerly O.S.No.174 of 2014 on the file of Principle Sub-Judge, Puducherry).

2. The property described in the schedules of both suits, almost refers one and the same property, with minor differences in measurements.

3. For the sake of clarity, the property descriptions in the respective plaints are extracted below:-

O.S.No.38 of 2017: (formerly O.S.No.174 of 2014) :-

SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY

A vacant plot and a house situated in Pondicherry R.D. Oulgaret Sub R.D.Saram Revenue Village No.38, Avvai nagar, 32^nd Cross Road, R.S.No.204/4, Patta No.l866, to an extent of East-West 20 feet-South-North 60 feet-Total 1200 sq.feet.

Boundaries

To the South of 32^nd Cross Street of Avvai nagar, To the East of the house bearing Door.No.1, To the West of Nabigal Nayagam Street, To the North of property of Puthulai Mariamman Koil Maniyam.

O.S.No.51 of 2015 (formerly O.S.No.174 of 2014)

4. There are few more litigations in respect of the properties under the same survey numbers, all traced through their original owner, Krishnaveni Ammal. Therefore, for the convenience purpose, wherever necessary, O.S.No.174 of 2014 (re-numbered as O.S.No.38 of 2017 and presented on 24.09.2014) will be referred to as ‘senior suit’ and O.S.No.51 of 2015 (presented on 31.03.2015) will be referred to as ‘junior suit’.

5. The plaintiff in the senior suit, O.S.No.38 of 2017 is one Coumar, represented through his Power Agent, Devasagayam. The defendants in that suit are Paramasivam, his wife Alamelu and their son Vijaya Baskar. The plaintiff in the junior suit, O.S.No.51 of 2015 is Alamelu, represented by her Power of Attorney/husband, Paramasivam. The defendants in that suit are Coumar, Devasagayam and Ramakrishnan.

6. The main relief sought in both suits is a declaration of title and recovery of vacant possession. The prayers are also almost identical in both the suits. For the said reason, after framing issues and as per the order of the Principal District Judge, Puducherry, in T.O.P.No.45 of 2016 dated 26.08.2016, O.S.No.174 of 2014 pending on the file of Principal Sub Court, Puducherry, was withdrawn and transferred to the file of Learned III Additional District Judge, Puducherry, for joint trial. Accordingly, the trial was conducted jointly by recording common evidence for both the suits.

7. Facts in brief:

O.S.No.38 of 2017: ( formerly O.S.No.174 of 2014):-

Thiru.Coumar, the plaintiff in the senior suit, claims title over the property based on a compromise decree passed in A.S.No.4 of 2011 on the file of Additional Sub Court, Puducherry, dated 26.09.2012 and on the basis of Will dated 19.06.1997 executed by Krishnaveni Ammal, W/o.Mouttoucomarassamy.

8. The case of Coumar, the plaintiff in O.S.No.38 of 2017 is that, Kosali @ Kowsalya had earlier filed suit against Krishnaveni Ammal under O.S.No.36 of 1995 on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Puducherry and obtained an exparte decree. Knowing that, Coumar filed a suit in O.S.No.390 of 2000 (on the file of Principal District Munsif, Puducherry), to declare the exparte decree passed in O.S.No.36 of 1995 as null and void. His suit O.S.No.390/2000 was dismissed. Against the dismissal order dated 29.11.2010, Coumar filed A.S.No.4 of 2011 . The said appeal in A.S.No.4 of 2011 was allowe