Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 47412
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J
C.Rajakumaran (deceased) – Appellant
Versus
Arumugam – Respondent
S.A.No.243 of 2009 | M.P.No.1 of 2009 | M.P.No.1 of 2013
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms.G.Sumitra
For the Respondents: Mr.K.Mohammed Hyether Ali for Mr.D.Ravichander
The appellate court found no substantial legal question regarding property title claims based on oral partition, asserting factual determinations were central to the case.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure - Section 100 - Second Appeal filed to set aside judgment and decree reversing the Trial Court's decision on property title and injunction - The plaintiff's claim for title was based on ownership, while the defendant contested it based on oral partition and prior transactions. (Para 9)
(B) Title and Possession - The appeal was to declare title and protect possession against interference, with emphasis on oral partition and registered documents. The Appeal was dismissed as no substantial question of law arose. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought to establish title to a specific portion of property claimed to be natham poramboke, while the defendant claimed rights based on ownership transactions and oral partition among family members.
Findings of Court:
The Court ruled that the appeal lacked a substantial question of law, affirming the lower court's findings and granting permission for partition applications.
Issues: The main issues identified were the classification of land and the validity of partition claims among the siblings.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that claims center on factual determinations rather than substantial legal questions, reinforcing that no errors were present in the lower courts' conclusions.
Result: The Second Appeal is dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overall appeal dismissed; liberty for partition applications granted. (Para 1) |
| 2. plaintiff claims title to property based on ownership. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court confirms prior deeds and oral partition as critical evidence. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. no substantial questions of law identified; matter factual. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2008 made in A.S.No.24 of 2008 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, reversing the judgment and decree dated 29.02.2008 made in O.S.No.580 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Cuddalore.
2. Heard Ms.G.Sumitra, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.K.Mohammed Hyether Ali, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
3. The plaintiff in O.S.No.580 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court at Cuddalore was the deceased first appellant. The suit in O.S.No.580 of 2005 had been filed seeking a judgment and decree to declare the title of the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. The property had been described in the schedule as vacant land measuring 9
1/2 cents with a house at Annavalli Village in Cuddalore District. The boundaries have been given in the schedule to the plaint.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the property was classified as natham poramboke in the revenue records. The father of the plaintiff Chinnarasu and his brothers Arumugham, the defendant herein and yet another brother Subramanian were residing in a tiled house. The total area was around 15 cents. It had been contended that Subramanian had sold his 5 cents of land to Arumugham which crystallized the possession of Arumugham to 10 cents, but the plaintiff retained 5 cents. It had been contended that the defendant had been trying to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and questioning the right and title of the plaintiff. Therefore, a suit had been filed seeking declaration of title and for protecting the possession.
5. A written statement had been filed by the defendant denying and disputing the contentions of the plaintiff. It had been contended that the plaintiff had obtained patta clandestinely for a larger extent and there was an oral partition of the total area of 15 cents. 5 cents in the southern most area was allotted to the plaintiff's father Chinnarasu and the centre portion of 5 cents was allotted to the defendant and the northern portion of 5 cents had been allotted to Subramanian. It had been contended that the defendant had purchased the northern portion of 5 cents from Subramanian and consolidated his possession to a total area of 10 cents. But the father of the plaintiff was entitled to only 5 cents of land. This purchase was through a registered sale deed dated 03.02.2003 for a valuable consideration of Rs.50,000/-. The defendant therefore claimed that he was entitled to the possession of 10 cents and also asserted title to the said area of 10 cents.
6. The learned Trial Judge, on the basis of the pleadings and on appreciation of evidence, had decreed the suit and had granted title to the plaintiff for an area of 5 cents of the suit property and to the defendant to an area of 10 cents. This has necessitated A.S.No.24 of 2008 to be filed before the First Additional Sub-Court, Cuddalore by the defendant Arumugham. The learned First Additional Sub Judge while re-appreciating the evidence, had first examined the classification of land which according to the plaintiff was a natham poramboke and however, relied on the evidence which pointed out that the land was a sarkar poramboke and not a natham poramboke. The learned First Appellate Court had also placed reliance on Ex.B4 dated 03.02.2003, a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant by the other co-owner Subramani and Ex.B3 which is a mortgage deed wherein, the factum of partition had be
