Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 1456
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J
V. PORKODI – Appellant
Versus
R.LAKSHMI DEVI (DECEASED) – Respondent
The court upheld that transactions validated by historical evidences and lack of objections from stakeholders establish rightful ownership despite conditional sale limitations.
Headnote:
Property - Ownership - Sections 90, 58 of Limitation Act - The court interpreted the validity of a sale deed and the implications of a conditional sale deed, confirming the plaintiff's ownership based on documentary evidence and presumption for aged documents, ultimately ruling in favor of the plaintiff.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff claimed ownership of a property purchased via a sale deed from the original allottee, while defendants contested the sale on the basis of a condition barring resale for five years. The court considered the historical transactions and subsequent documents validating the plaintiff's claim.
Issues: Whether the sale deed executed by the original vendor in favor of the plaintiff is valid considering the conditions imposed by the Housing Board and the timing of the execution.
Ratio Decidendi: The presumption under Section 90 for aged documents established the validity of the sale deed, superseding the defendant's claims. Moreover, lack of objection from the Housing Board and the original vendor indicated lawful ownership and continued possession by the plaintiff.
Final Decision: The appeal is dismissed; the suit is decreed in favor of the plaintiff.
The appellant has filed this appeal to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 20.04.2017 passed in O.S.No.49 of 2015 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur, Poonnamallee.
2. Heard Mr. AR.L.Sundaresan, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for M/s.TKS. Bharathy Anandraj, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. T.Sampath Kumar, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 and Mr.T.V.Ramanujam, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.A.Arumugam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 4 & 5 and perused the materials available on record.
3. For the purpose of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are ranked in the suit.
2\16 4. The appellants herein are the defendants 1 to 3 in suit O.S. No. 49 of 2015 on the file of the III Additional District Judge, Thiruvallur, Poonnamallee. The defendants 1 to 3 have preferred this First Appeal challenging the findings rendered by the learned trial Judge in favor of the 1st respondent/plaintiff by granting relief of declaration as well as directing them to hand over possession of the ground floor with damages. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff who filed a suit against the defendants for declaration with consequential reliefs. After the decree, the plaintiff was died her legal heirs were added as respondents 4 and 5 in the appeal.
5. The brief facts of the case are as follows: According to the plaintiff, she purchased the suit property in plot No.1026 in Padi village, Survey No.290, in TDS Colony, Anna Nagar West, from one Venugopal, who is the husband of the 1st defendant herein. The plaintiff further submits that originally the said plot was allotted to her vendor Venugopal through the Tamil Nadu Housing Board on 30.12.1985 by registering the sale deed in his favor. With an intention to sell, he entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff on 31.07.1985. On that date, possession of the property and other relevant documents were handed over to her, and a General Power of Attorney was executed in favor of her son on the same day.
3\16 Thereafter, on 09.01.1986, Venugopal executed a sale deed in her favor. On 01.12.1989, a release deed executed by the Housing Board was also handed over to her. Since the sale agreement dated 30.07.1985, the plaintiff has been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the property, having also constructed a building in 1985 with proper approval from CMD, along with water and electricity connections, and tax imposed on her. Due to her old age, she resides in Nagapattinam. Therefore, the ground floor and the 1st floor were rented to two individuals separately. Subsequently, the original vendor Venugopal died, and his legal heirs/defendants 1 to 3 claimed ownership of the property and also offered to sell it unlawfully. They also requested the Revenue Authority to transfer the tax in their favor, but upon a perusal of the records, their request was refused. The rectification deed was also mentioned in favor of the plaintiff as it was falsely recorded as a sale deed instead of a release deed. The plaintiff enjoyed the property without encumbrance, but the defendants 1 to 3 trespassed into the property and occupied the ground floor, leading to the suit. D1 to D3, the legal heirs of the plaintiff's vendor Venugopal, contested the suit as defendants 1 to 3, stating that the property was originally allotted to D1's husband Venugopal in 1974. Venugopal paid the installments to the Housing Board, and subsequently, on 07.01.1996, a sale deed was executed in his favor with a condition not to sell the property 4\16 for 5 years. On 01.12.1989, the conditions were relaxed and a release deed was executed by the Board, after which D1's husband became the absolute owner and enjoyed the property. The defendants claimed that the plaintiff created fabricated documents and executed a fabricated sale deed in respect of the suit property, denying that Venugopal had executed any sale deed in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants a
