Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 8467
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
P. Velmurugan, J
Karuppuchamy – Appellant
Versus
Panja Thevar – Respondent
S.A.No.324 of 1996
For the Appellants/Petitioners: T. Antony Arulraj
For the Respondents: K. Chengiz Khan
In a suit for declaration of title, the burden of proof rests entirely upon the plaintiff to establish his own title; he cannot succeed by relying on the weakness of the evidence or title presented by the defendant.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 100 - Suit for declaration and injunction - Burden of proof - Held, in a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must prove his case on the strength of his own title and cannot rely upon the weakness of the defendant's case - The plaintiff failed to establish that his vendor possessed absolute title to the suit property, rendering the claim for declaration unsuccessful. (Paras 12, 13, and 14)
Facts of the case:
The appellant (plaintiff) sought a declaration and injunction regarding a property he purchased via a registered sale deed. The plaintiff claimed his vendor derived her title from one branch of the original owner's family. The respondents (defendants), who had entered into a previous sale agreement with the same vendor but later purchased from another branch of the family, contested the plaintiff's title and possession. The trial court decreed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the decision, citing a lack of proof of clear title.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the appellant failed to trace and establish the devolution of title from the original owner to his vendor. Consequently, the appellate court's reversal of the trial court's judgment was deemed correct, as the plaintiff failed to discharge the initial burden of proof required in civil suits for declaration.
Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiff had established his absolute right and title over the suit property and whether the appellate court was correct in dismissing the suit based on the plaintiff's failure to satisfy the burden of proof.
Ratio Decidendi: A plaintiff seeking a declaration must establish their own title independently; they cannot succeed merely by highlighting deficiencies in the defendant's case or reliance on unproven assertions of possession. Since the plaintiff failed to affirmatively prove his vendor's absolute title, he was not entitled to the relief sought.
Result: Second Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of trial history and property ownership claims. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai made in A.S.No.46 of 1992, dated 06.09.1994 reversing the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Manamadurai made in O.S.No.457 of 1988, dated 09.04.1991.
J U D G M E N T
The appellant is the plaintiff. He filed a suit in O.S.No.457 of 1988, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Manamadurai for declaration and injunction. The said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff, therefore, the respondents/defendants filed an appeal in A.S.No.46/1992, on the file of the Sub-Court, Sivagangai. The appellate Court after hearing the appeal and re-appreciating the evidence, dismissed the suit by setting aside the judgment and decreed passed by the trial Court.
2. After completing the pleadings and framing of issues, on the side of the plaintiff, two witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and 4 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A4. On the side of the defendants, three witnesses were examined as D.W.1 to D.W3 and 17 documents were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B17.
3. After trial, the trial Court granted judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the defendants filed an appeal before the Sub-Court, Sivagangai in A.S.No.46/1992. The learned Sub-Judge, after hearing the arguments, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Now, challenging the said judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court, the plaintiff has filed the present second appeal before this Court.
4. The brief facts of the case of the appellant as per the plaint is that the suit property originally belongs to Arunachalam Pillai and Somasundaram Pillai. Somasundaram Pillai has got two sons, namely, Muthusamy Pillai and Vellaichamy Pillai. The vendor of the plaintiff i.e., Devikarani is the branch of Muthusamy Pillai. The suit properties were under the enjoyment of Muthusamy Pillai and Vellaichamy Pillai. The Vellaichamy branch has no right in the suit property. Therefore, initially, the first defendant entered into an agreement with the vendor of the plaintiff and subsequently, one reason or other, he did not come forward to get the sale deed and therefore, Devikarani sold the property to the plaintiff under the registered sale deed, dated 23.05.1988. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to the suit property and the vendor of the appellant was enjoying the property and she sold the property to the appellant and handed over the possession and later the first defendant tried to interfere with the suit property on the ground that he got the sale deed from the second and third defendants, who have got a right and enjoyment of the property. Therefore, the appellant was constrained to file the suit against the respondents/defendants for declaration and injunction.
5. The case of the respondents/defendants is that the suit properties originally belonged to Somasundaram Pillai and Arunachalam Pillai. Somasundaram Pillai has got two sons, namely, Muthusamy Pillai and Vellaichamy Pillai. Defendants 2 & 4 are the branches of the Vellaichamy Pillai. The second defendant is the husband of Meenal and the fourth defendant is the son of Meenal. Therefore, after the death of the Meenal, they are entitled to the suit property and hence, they sold the property to first defendant and therefore, the first defendant is the absolute owner of the property and he is enjoying the property and even the Forest Department recognized the right and possession of the first defendant. Therefore, the appellant has no right and title over the possession and he is not entitled to declaration and injunction and he is not in possession of the property.
