Back
MADRAS HIGH COURT
N. Anand Venkatesh, J.
R. Selvaraj (died) and Ors. —Appellants
versus
Amutha and Ors. —Respondents
Second Appeal Nos.257 and 260 of 2012, MP Nos.1, 1 of 2012
Decided on 7.4.2022
(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 3 – Proof of fact – Proof does not mean proof to rigid mathematical demonstration, because that is impossible and it must only mean that such evidence as would induce a reasonable man to come to the conclusion – Degree of certainty which must be arrived at before a fact is said to be proved is what has been described in this section – Definition of proof centres around probability – Court while dealing with civil cases applies a standard of proof governed by preponderance of probabilities. (Para 32)
(B) Injunction – Suit for Permanent Injunction – Appellant claiming to be absolute owner of property through a registered sale deed – Further case of appellant was that he is in possession and enjoyment of property by paying necessary kist and tax – Trial Court has properly analysed tenability of Family Arrangement and given a finding that this document cannot be acted upon and fact stated therein has not been proved – Family Arrangement which is said to have come into existence in year 1975 did not find place in any of registered documents executed by Vendors – Appellant cannot be held to be a bonafide purchaser – Entire Judgment and Decree set aside and Judgment and Decree of Trial Court restored. (Paras 32, 33, 34, 35 and 36)
Result: Second Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT
N. Anand Venkatesh, J.—The issue involved in both the Second Appeals are common and hence they are taken up together, heard and disposed of through this Common Judgment.
2. The plaintiff in O.S. No. 15 of 2000 and the 1st defendant in O.S. No. 447 of 2004 is the appellant in these Second Appeals.
3. The appellant filed the suit in O.S. No. 15 of 2000 on the ground that he became the absolute owner of the property in Survey No. 352/1A measuring an extent of 42 cents along with a well, motor and electricity connection from one Ramasamy Gounder and his wife Perumayee through a registered sale deed dated 18.2.1998, marked as Ex. A1. The further case of the appellant was that he is in possession and enjoyment of the said property by paying the necessary kist and tax.
4. The grievance of the appellant was that the defendant who had their property on the western and northern side of the suit property were pressurising the appellant to sell his property. Since the appellant refused to sell the property, the defendant developed an enmity and consequently started preventing the appellant from enjoying his property. The appellant, left with no other option filed the suit seeking for the relief of permanent injunction against the defendant.
5. The 1st respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No. 447 of 2004 against the appellant and others. The case of the 1st respondent was that the three items of suit property which were shown in the plaint schedule originally belonged to the family of Ramasamy Gounder. In the year 1943, Ramasamy Gounder and his family divided the property through a oral partition whereby certain portions of the property were allotted to the share of Ramasamy Gounder and certain other portions were allotted to the share of his son Kumarasamy. The 1st respondent/plaintiff purchased the first item of the suit property from the said Ramasamy Gounder through a sale deed dated 27.11.1997 which was marked as Ex.A1. Insofar as the second item of the suit property is concerned, the 1st respondent/plaintiff purchased the same from Kumarasamy through a registered sale deed dated 5.12.1997 marked as Ex.A2. The third item of the suit property was purchased from Kumarasamy, his wife and children through a registered sale deed dated 23.1.1998,marked as Ex.A3. The third item of the suit property was described as 20 cents of land out of 40 cents in Survey No. 352/1A along with the super structures therein, well, electricity connection and the right of pathway.
6. The grievance of the 1st respondent/plaintiff was that the said Ramasamy Gounder and his wife Perumayee with the help of the appellant started challenging the 1st respondent/plaintiff with regard to her right and title over the suit property and was preventing her from peacefully enjoying the property. Hence the suit was filed seeking for the relief of declaration of title with respect to 2nd and 3rd item of the suit property and for permanent injunction with respect to all the properties.
7. The appellant who filed a written statement in O.S. No. 447 of 2004 basically challenged the claim made by the 1st respondent/plaintiff over the 3rd item of the suit property which is the land situated at Survey No. 352/1A. The appellant took a defence that when the 1st item of the suit property was sold in favour of the 1st respondent/plaintiff through sale deed dated 27.11.1997, a sketch was annexed along with the sale deed which clearly showed that 1.80 acres was conveyed in favour of the 1st respondent/plaintiff and the rest of the property was retained by Ramasamy Gounder. Similarly while executing the sale deed dated 5.12.1997, Kumarasamy had conveyed the entire property described in the 2nd item of the suit schedule measuring 2.20 acres in favour of the 1st respondent/plaintiff. The actual dispute was raised with respect to the 3rd item of the suit property wherein the appellant took a stand that Kumarasamy, his wife and children executed the sale deed dated 23.1.1998in fa
SupremeToday
In mofussil litigation, courts should interpret pleadings liberally to serve substantial justice. While a plaintiff must prove title independently and cannot rely on revenue records alone, a party in....
The principle of feeding the grant by estoppel allows a subsequent acquisition of title to validate an earlier transfer made by a person who lacked title at the time of the transfer, thereby protecti....
The appellate court determined that the First Appellate Court erred in not properly evaluating the ownership evidence, resulting in incorrect distribution of property rights and affirming the Plainti....
Compulsory registration as adumbrated under Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, failing which, the claimants/appellants have to face mischief consequences of Section 49 of the Registration Act
Party to family partition as minor is estopped from disputing its measurements post-majority without challenge, after acting upon it; plaintiff must prove title independently beyond allotted share, n....
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
