Only registered documents confer valid title to property; oral claims are insufficient.

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN S.A.No.972 of 2009 and M.P.No.1 of 2009 Gandhimathi ... Appellant vs.

1. Ramalingam

2. Govindammal

3. Kalyani Ammal ..Respondents PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the decree and Judgment dated 26.09.2008 in A.S.No.28 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Court, (Fast Track Court), Ariyalur, confirming the decree and Judgment dated 13.07.1999 in O.S.No.34 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif, Jayamkondan.

For Appellants : Mr.V.Manoharan For Respondents : Mr.P.Valliappan, Senior Counsel for Mr.G.R.M.Palaniappan for R1

JUDGMENT

The first defendant in O.S.No.34 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Jayankondam is the appellant herein. The first respondent/plaintiff filed the said suit seeking a Judgment and decree to declare his title over the suit property and direct the first defendant who is the appellant herein to surrender possession of the suit property and also to order an enquiry under Order XX Rule 12 of C.P.C for mesne profits to be paid by the first defendant to him from the date of the suit till he takes possession and for costs of the suit.

2. The property described in the Schedule to the plaint is situated in Survey field number 220/1 measuring about 0.60 cents with a thatched house at Solankurichi Village, Udayarpalayam Taluk in Tiruvalluvar District now Ariyalur District. In the plaint, it had been contended that the said property originally belonged to one Govindammal and her sister Kalyani Ammal and that the plaintiff had purchased the property under a registered Sale Deed dated 12.12.1995 for a valuable consideration of Rs.10,000/- and taken possession of the suit property. It had been further stated that the first defendant was in possession of the land to the South of the property and also had patta. It had been stated that he had forcefully encroached into the suit property and put up a thatched house on 19.12.1995 and also put up a wall around. It is under those circumstances that the suit had been filed seeking declaration of title and for recovery of possession and for mesne profits and also for costs of the suit.

3. In the written statement filed by the first defendant/appellant herein, it had been contended that there was an oral sale executed in her favour for valuable consideration of Rs.3,000/- and it had been further stated that the first defendant was in rightful possession of the suit property and had also obtained patta for the same.

4. The suit came up for consideration before the District Munsif Court at Jayankondam. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed for consideration:

i. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to a decree of declaration of title over the suit property?

ii. Whether the plaintiff was entitled for a decree of recovery of possession of the suit property?

iii.Whether the plaintiff was entitled for mesne profits for use and occupation by the defendants?

iv. To what other relief are the parties entitled?

5. During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined one another witness Palanivel as P.W.2. The first defendant was examined as D.W.1 and the second defendant was examined as D.W.5 and the third defendant was examined as D.W.4. Four other witnesses were also examined as D.W2, D.W.3, D.W.6 and D.W.7. The plaintiff marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A5.

● Ex.A1 dated 12.12.1995 was the original of the Sale Deed of the suit schedule property reflecting purchase of the property by the plaintiff.

● Ex.A2 was the Settlement deed in favour of the second and third defendants dated 17.07.1980 executed by one Gurusamy Padaiyatchi.

● A copy of the complaint given by the plaintiff dated 21.12.1995 was marked as Ex.A4.

● A copy of the Sale Deed executed by the second and third defendants