Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 1480
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Hon`ble Mr.Justice S.SOUNTHAR
GOMATHIAMMAL – Appellant
Versus
K.MASANAM THEVAR(DIED) – Respondent
S.A(MD)NO.1000 OF 2008
Mr.S.Ramesh, Mr.T.Arivukumar, Mr.R.Manimaran
The entry in the Adangal (revenue records) is the best evidence to prove the possession of agricultural lands.
Headnote:
Possession - Agricultural Land - Mortgage Deed - Yathasthu - Adangal Extracts
Fact of the Case:
The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit for bare injunction against the appellants/defendants. The plaintiffs claimed that they had mortgaged the suit property to the defendants' predecessor, Irulappa Thevar, and had redeemed the mortgage in 1987. However, the defendants claimed that the plaintiffs had executed a Yathasthu in favor of Irulappa Thevar, granting him possession of the property in lieu of interest, and that they had also entered into a sale agreement with Irulappa Thevar. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit, but the first appellate court reversed the decision and granted a decree for injunction in favor of the plaintiffs.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the execution of the unregistered Yathasthu (Ex.B1) by the plaintiffs in favor of Irulappa Thevar was highly doubtful, as it was dated the same day as the registered mortgage deed (Ex.A1) and there was no need for such an additional document. The court also held that the Adangal extracts (Ex.A2 to Ex.A9) produced by the plaintiffs, which showed their continuous possession of the property for nearly 8 years preceding the suit, were the best evidence to prove their lawful possession.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs proved their lawful possession over the suit property?2. Whether the defendants' reliance on the unregistered Yathasthu (Ex.B1) was valid?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The registered mortgage deed (Ex.A1) did not contain any recitals about the transfer of possession to the defendants, while the unregistered Yathasthu (Ex.B1) relied upon by the defendants was highly doubtful.2. The Adangal extracts (Ex.A2 to Ex.A9) produced by the plaintiffs, which showed their continuous possession of the property for nearly 8 years preceding the suit, were the best evidence to prove their lawful possession.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the second appeal and upheld the first appellate court's decision to grant a decree for injunction in favor of the plaintiffs.
Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.47 of 2005, dated 24.10.2005, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tuticorin, reversing the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.139 of 2001, dated 03.01.2003, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Srivaikundam.
2.The unsuccessful defendants in a suit for bare injunction filed by the respondents, are the appellants. The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the respondents and the First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and decreed the suit.
Aggrieved by the same, the defendants are before this Court.
3,According to the respondents/Plaintiffs, the suit property are agricultural lands belonging to the first plaintiff and he mortgaged the suit property in favour of one Manickam @ Irulappa Thevar, husband of the first defendant and father of the second defendant, on 26.10.1980 and received the mortgage debt of Rs. 11,000/-. As per the terms of the Mortgage Deed, the first Plaintiff was liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per year. It was also claimed by the plaintiffs that the mortgage was redeemed in the year 1987 itself by paying the entire mortgage debt. However, the title documents of the plaintiffs were not returned by the said Irulappa Thevar on the ground that those documents were misplaced. After some time, the said Irulappa Thevar died and hence the plaintiffs could not get the Mortgage Discharge document from him. Recently there was a misunderstanding between the plaintiffs and defendants and therefore, the defendants attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and the same necessitated filing of the suit for bare injunction.
4.The first defendant filed a Written Statement and the same was adopted by the second defendant. In the written statement, the defendants denied the averments in the plaint as if the suit poroperty mortgage was redeemed even during the lifetime of Irulappa Thevar. It was claimed by the defendants that on the date of Mortgage itself, the plaintiffs executed an Yathathsu in favour of Irulappa Thevar and as per the terms of the same, the Irulappa Thevar had been enjoying the property in lieu of interest. After his death, the defendants had been in possession and enjoyment. It was also pleaded by the defendants that on 25.06.1982, there was a sale agreement between plaintiffs and Irulappa Thevar whereunder the plaintiffs have ageed to sell the suit property to Irulappa Thevar for a sale consideration of Rs.24,255/- The plaintiffs received a sum of Rs.8,755/- under the agreement apart from the earlier mortgage debt of Rs.11,000/- There was only a sum of Rs.4,500/- remained to be paid by the defendants to the Plaintiffs. On these pleadings, the defendants prayed for the dismissal of the suit.
5.Before the trial Court, the first plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and the mortgage deed executed by the first plaintiff in favour of Irulappa Thevar was marked as Ex.A1. On behalf of the defendants, the first defendant was examined as D.W.1. Yet another witness was examined as D.W,2. On behalf of the defendants, Yathasthu, dated 26.10.1980 executed by Plaintiffs in favour of Irulappa Thevar was marked as Ex.B1.The sale agreement between the plaintiffs and Irulappa Thevar was marked as Ex.B2. 6.The trial Court, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession over the suit property by producing any revenue documents and hence, dismissed the suit for bare injunction. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents/plaintiffs preferred an appeal in A.S.NO.47/2005, on the file of Sub-Court, Thoothukudi. The plaintiffs filed an application under Order 21 Rule 47 of Civil Procedure Code for reception of additional evidence and produced the Adangal extracts for the suit property for the Fasli years 1403 to 1410 and the same were marked as Ex.A2 to Ex.A9. The patta stood in the name of the plaintiffs wer
