Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 49901
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.Srimathy, J
R.Ravi – Appellant
Versus
S.K.Pari – Respondent
S.A.(MD).Nos.413 and 414 of 2015|M.P.(MD)Nos.1 and 2 of 2015|A.S.No.60 of 2011|O.S.No.136 of 2006|A.S.No.61 of 2011|O.S.No.125 of 2006
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.S.Parthasarathy for Mr.C.Gangai Amaran
For the Respondents:Mr.K.Govindarajan, Mr.C.Satheesh Government Advocate
The burden of proof lies with the party asserting a claim, and the court emphasized that defendants must prove their title independently without relying on the weaknesses of the plaintiffs' case.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code - Section 100 - Second appeals against judgments reversing trial court decisions - The appellants sought declarations and injunctions regarding property ownership and possession, with the trial court initially ruling in their favor. The appellate court reversed this, prompting the second appeals. (Paras 2-3, 7, 21)
(B) Property Law - Principles of title and possession - The court reaffirmed that the burden of proof lies with the party asserting a claim, emphasizing that the defendants must prove their title independently rather than relying on the plaintiffs' weaknesses. (Paras 11-12, 18)
(C) Evidence Act - Sections 68 and 114 - The court clarified the admissibility of documents in proving title and possession, ruling that the absence of an attesting witness does not negate the validity of a document if its execution is not denied. (Paras 17-18)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, claiming ownership through a series of genealogical documents and a gift deed, faced opposition from the defendants, who claimed the property was common land. The trial court initially ruled partly in favor of the plaintiffs, but the appellate court reversed this decision.
Findings of Court:
The appellate court's ruling was based on an erroneous shift of the burden of proof to the plaintiffs, leading to a misinterpretation of evidence regarding property ownership.
Issues: The court addressed whether the burden of proof was correctly placed on the defendants, the admissibility of documents without attesting witnesses, and the nature of the claims regarding property ownership.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendants, as plaintiffs in their own suit, bore the burden to prove their title, and the appellate court erred in shifting this burden to the plaintiffs.
Result: Both second appeals are allowed, reversing the appellate court's decisions and affirming the trial court's judgments.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ownership and genealogy of property (Para 4 , 5) |
| 2. issues framed by the trial court (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. substantial questions of law admitted (Para 8 , 9) |
| 4. burden of proof in property disputes (Para 11 , 12 , 14) |
| 5. presumption of title based on settlement register (Para 13 , 15) |
| 6. proof of possession and its implications (Para 18 , 19) |
| 7. final judgment and decree modifications (Para 20 , 21) |
COMMON JUDGMENT
Both the second appeals arise from the common judgment and hence both the appeals are taken together and common judgment is passed.
2.(i) The S.A.(MD)No.413 of 2015 is preferred by the defendants 1 and 2 in the O.S.No.136 of 2006 against the judgment and decree, dated 05.01.2015, passed in A.S.No.60 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Court, Kulithalai, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 31.10.2011, passed in O.S.No.136 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kulithalai.
2.(ii) The plaintiffs 2 to 5 in the suit are the respondents 11 to 14 in the present second appeal. The defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants herein. The defendants 3 and 4 in the suit are the respondents 9 and 10 herein. The 1st plaintiff died and the legal representatives of the 1st plaintiff are respondents 1 to 8 herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiffs and defendants as per the ranking in O.S.No.125 of 2006 or by referring the names.
3.(i) The S.A.(MD)No.414 of 2015 is preferred by the plaintiffs in O.S.No. 125 of 2006 against the judgment and decree, dated 05.01.2015, passed in A.S.No. 61 of 2011 on the file of Sub Court, Kulithalai reversing the judgment and decree, dated 31.10.2011, passed in O.S.No.125 of 2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kulithalai.
3.(ii) The plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants herein. The defendants 1 to 4 in the suit are the respondents 1 to 4 herein. The 5th defendant died and his legal representatives are the respondents 5 to 12 herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiffs and defendants as per the ranking in O.S.No. 125 of 2006 or by referring the names.
4. The suit in O.S.No.125 of 2006 is filed for declaration and injunction against the defendants. The brief facts as stated in the plaint is that the plaintiffs are brothers and their father’s name is Ramachandran, his father’s name is Muthu @Muthubenkatachala Reddiar, his father is Pappu Reddiar. The defendants are descendants of one Alagiri Reddiar. The said Alagiri Reddiar is the son of Pappu Reddiar’s father’s brother. The plaintiffs had filed genealogy along with the plaint. The suit property eastern half 0.11 cents and western half 0.11 cents totally 0.22 cents in S.No.103/1 Sengal Village, Krishnapuram Taluk originally belongs to Alagiri Reddiar and Pappu Reddiar, which would be evident from Settlement Register. Subsequently they partitioned equally and orally and Alagirisamy was allotted the western half of 0.11 cents and the Pappu Reddiar was allotted the eastern half 0.11 cents. Thereafter another registered partition was executed on 14.07.1937 between Pappu Reddiar and his legal heirs, wherein the said suit property was allotted to plaintiff’s grandfather Muthu @ Muthuvenkatachalam under B schedule in the said deed. In the said deed the 1st defendant Alagarsamy’s father Muthuvenkatachalam Reddiar had affixed his signature as witnesses, hence the witness has full knowledge about the partition and allotment of shares within specific four boundaries and have acquiesced to the enjoyment of the allotted shares by the respective allottees ever since 1937. The B schedule sharer Muthu @ Muthuvenkatachalam Reddiar (grandfather of the plaintiffs) was immediately put into possession of the said share. Thereafter on 20.07.1971 the plaintiff’s grandfather Muthu@ Muthuvenkatachalam and his two sons Radhakrishnan and Ramachandran entered into a registered partition in which the said Muthu@ Muthuvenkatachalam was allotted the suit property under A schedule and was in peaceful p
