Unregistered sale deeds admissible for collateral purposes like possession character under Registration Act Section 49; suit for possession barred by limitation where adverse possession established from 1978 via ownership acts despite failed permissive plea.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

1.The defendants 2 to 5 in O.S.No.3 of 2010 are the appellants, aggrieved by the reversal findings rendered by the first appellate Court.

2. I have heard Ms.T.Shiva Shree, for Mr.B.Ramanathan, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.V.N.Arjun, for Mr.N.Vallinayagam, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

4. The second appeal was admitted by this Court on 06.11.2020 on the following substantial questions of law:

“a. Whether the learned first appellate Court is right in allowing the appeal filed by the plaintiffs/respondents without considering the filing of the suit itself is barred by limitation as contemplated under Articles 58, 59 and 65 of the Law of Limitation Act, 1965?

b. Whether the learned first appellate Court is right in rejecting the documents filed on the side of the Appellants/Defendants that is Exhibits B2 and B3 and as to whether those documents are valid in the eye of law especially they are admitted by the respondents/plaintiffs?

c. Whether the first appellate Court is right in accepting the case of the Respondents/Plaintiffs when they have admitted the entrustment of the possession of the properties in the life time of their father that is much earlier to the original suit?

d. Whether the benefits and credibility contemplated under section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act is applicable to Exhibits B-2 and B-3?

e. Whether Section 54 of Transfer of Property Act is applicable to the case of the Appellants/Defendants?

f. Whether the totality of the case is rightly considered by the learned first Appellate Court or not?”

5. Brief facts that are necessary for deciding the second appeal are as hereunder:

5.1. An extent of 32 cents comprised in survey No.52/1, originally belonged to one Thandi Thevar, who is the grand father of the plaintiffs and another extent of 30 cents comprised in survey No.52/2 belonged to one Rasu thevar, who is the father of the plaintiffs, who had purchased the same under sale deed dated 18.05.1951. According to the plaintiffs, the entire extent of 62 cents was a single lot. After the life time of the father of the plaintiffs, viz., Rasu Thevar, his wife/ Ponnammal and the plaintiffs /daughters, enjoyed the property in common and subsequent to the demise of the mother / Ponnammal, the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the property and there are 30 coconut trees available in the property. According to the plaintiffs, they being women, they had appointed the first defendant to take care of the cultivation and the first defendant was also giving yields to the plaintiffs. However, the first defendant attempted to mutate the revenue records in his name. Hence, the plaintiffs sent a legal notice to the 1^st defendant on 09.11.2009 and the same was received by the first defendant on 11.11.2009. As the first defendant failed to reply and also hand over possession of the suit property, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit for declaration of their title and for recovery of possession.

5.2. The suit was resisted by the defendants stating that the properties comprised in survey No. 52/1 were not belonging to the grandfather of the plaintiffs as claimed in the plaint, but, it was purchased by Rasu Thevar under sale deed dated 15.08.1952 and even during his life time, the father of the plaintiffs, on 13.08.1977 had agreed to sell the said 64 cents to the 1^st defendant by way o