Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 36102
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Honourable Mr Justice N. SESHASAYEE
2014 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Reserved on : 23.11.2022 Pronounced on : 06.01.2023 CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE S.A.(MD) No.99
No.99
The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to establish their title to the suit property.
Headnote:
LAND DISPUTE - TITLE - EVIDENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff claimed title to 2.11 acres of land from two sources: (1) 88 cents purchased by her paternal grandfather in 1954, and (2) 1.23 acres acquired through a family partition. The defendants disputed the plaintiff's claim, asserting that the land belonged to their vendor, who had purchased it from the plaintiff's grandfather's son, Periya Anthony, who was not the plaintiff's father.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff had failed to establish her entitlement to the entire 2.11 acres. It held that the defendants had provided convincing evidence of the existence of Periya Anthony as the plaintiff's grandfather's son and that the plaintiff was only entitled to a fractional share in the 88 cents purchased by her grandfather.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff had established her title to the suit property.2. Whether the defendants had established their title to the suit property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden of proof was on the plaintiff to establish her title to the suit property. The plaintiff had failed to discharge this burden as she had not established that her grandfather had only two children, as she claimed. The defendants, on the other hand, had provided convincing evidence of the existence of Periya Anthony as the plaintiff's grandfather's son and that he had acquired title to the suit property.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and confirmed the judgment of the first appellate court, which had dismissed the plaintiff's suit.
SA(md)No.99 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 23.11.2022
Pronounced on : 06.01.2023
CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
S.A.(MD) No.99 of 2014
Padmavathi
... Appellant/Respondent/Plaintiff
Vs
1.Chellathai
2.Malisraj
3.Ebanraj
... Respondents/Appellants/Defendants
Prayer:- Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code to set
aside the judgment and decree dated 11.09.2012 made in A.S.No.7 of
2008 on the file of the Principal District Court, Tirunelveli, reversing the
judgment and decree dated 11.10.2007 in O.S.No.7 of 2005 on the file of
the Sub Court, Sankarankoil.
For Appellant
:
Mr.V.Meenakshi Sundaram
For R1 & R3
:
Mr.K.V.Sudhir Babu
R2
:
Party-in-Person
Page 1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(md)No.99 of 2014
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff, who was successful in a suit for declaration of her title and
for ancillary relief of injunction over the suit property in O.S.No.7 of
2005, having tasted a reversal in fortune in A.S.No.7 of 2008 which was
filed by the defendant, is the appellant herein.
2. The case of the plaintiff is:
•
Sy.No:65/8 in Vadanathampatti Village has a total extent of 2.76
acres. In this a block of 2.11 acres in S.No.65/8A1 is described as
the suit-property.
•
The plaintiff claims title to 2.11 acres from two different sources.
•
On 20.12.1954, a certain Kovil Pillai, the paternal grandfather of
the plaintiff purchased 88 cents under Ext.A.1 = Ext.B.4 sale
deed.
•
Kovil Pillai had two children namely Anthony and Savariammal.
Earlier on 07.09.1954, Anthony died leaving behind him surviving
Page 2 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(md)No.99 of 2014
his wife Pushpam and his daughter, the plaintiff. About 1960,
Kovil Pillai died, whereupon the 88 cents that he had purchased
under Ext.A.1= B4 devolved on his daughter-in-law Pushpam and
grand-daughter Savariammal. Since the mortgage was not
redeemed, by efflux of time, the mortgagees became the absolute
owners of this block of 1.23 acres.
•
The total extent of 2.11 acres (88 cents + 1.23 acres) was jointly
enjoyed by Pushpam, Savariammal. Later in a family partition, the
entire property came to be allotted to the share of Anthony's branch
since Savariammal was allotted some other property.
•
While Pushpam became entitled to 2.11 acres as stated above, the
remaining 65 cents in the said survey field is held by one Elangani
and few others and a joint patta under patta No: 2552 was issued to
them.
•
While so, on 07.12.2004 vide Ext.A.2 settlement deed Pushpam
had settled the suit property in favour of her daughter, the plaintiff
herein.
When the plaintiff faced obstruction to her title from the defendants, she
Page 3 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(md)No.99 of 2014
laid the suit for declaration of the title etc.
3. Resisting the suit, the defendants have pleaded in the written statement
as below:
•
The entire 2.76 acres in Sy.No:65/8 originally belonged to Samuel,
the vendor in Ext.A1 = Ext.B4 sale deed. It is true that Kovil
Pillai had purchased 88 cents under Ext.A.1 = Ext.B.4.
•
However, contrary to the assertion of the plaintiff, Kovil Pillai had
four children and not two. They were: (a) K.S.Anthony alias Periya
Anthony (b) Therasammal, (c) Savariammal; and (d) Anthony alias
Chinna Anthony. Plaintiff is the daughter of Chinna Anthony.
•
While so, on 21.06.1951, under Ext.B-3, Peria Anthony and his
sister Savariammal had obtained an otti of 32 cents from Samuel,
but the property was enjoyed only by Periya Anthony. At no point
of time Chinna Anthony, the father of the plaintiff ever enjoyed
this property.
•
Now, Peria Anthony became the title holder of 2.48 acres in S.No:
S.No.65/8A1, from different sources, and they are as below:
Page 4 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
SA(md)No.99 of 2014
•
Prior to his death on 10.05.1962, Kovil Pillai had orally
sold the 88 cents that he had purchased under Ext.A.1 to
