A.S.No.10 of 2012

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 28.04.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

A.S.No.10 of 2012 and

C.M.P.Nos.19865 and 23815 of 2019

Mohan Ranganathan

... Appellant

..vs..

S.A.Bheemaraja

... Respondent

This Appeal is filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code

against judgement and decree dated 28.09.2011 made in O.S.No.7822 of

2010 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court

I, Chennai.

For Appellant

:

Mr.N.Manokaran

For Respondent

:

Mr.K.Mahalingam

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the learned

Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.I, Chennai, in

O.S.No.7822 of 2010 dated 28.09.2011.

1/39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.10 of 2012

2

The appellant filed the suit in O.S.No.7822 of 2010 before

the learned Additional District Judge, Chennai, against the respondent

seeking to direct the respondent to pay a sum of Rs12,00,000/- with

interest at 9% from the date of suit towards damages and for costs.

3

The case of the appellant/plaintiff as per the averments made

in the plaint is that he is the owner of the property situated at No.43,

Padur Village, Chengalpattu Taluk, comprised in S.No.223/2, measuring

an extent of 1 acre and 38 cents. He purchased the above said property

from one C.A.Khabeer by means of two sale deeds dated 18.4.2006 and

19.4.2006, registered as Document Nos. 3526/2006 and 3545/2006, on

the file of the Sub-Registrar, Thiruporur. The right and title of

appellant/plaintiff's vendor in the property has been confirmed by a

decree passed in his favour in O.S.No.8667/1985 and in the above said

suit one Mehrunnissa and others were the defendants. The

appellant/plaintiff after purchasing the property, applied for patta and the

same was under consideration by the authorities.

2/39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.10 of 2012

4

In the mean time the respondent/defendant had purchased

the very same property by way of a sale deed dated 20.10.2006 from one

Kasturi Ammal who traced her title from Mehrunnisa against whom the

appellant/plaintiff's vendor got a decree in the above said suit. In other

words, Mehrunnissa who did not have any right or title over the property

had sold it to one Manickam and two others who in turn had sold to

Kasturi Ammal from whom the respondent/defendant purchased the

property. When Mehrunnissa herself does not have right over the

property, no one else claiming under her can have any right or title over

the property on the principle that transferee cannot have a better right or

title than what the vendor had.

5

The defendant after getting an illegal sale deed executed in

his favour, illegally obtained patta in his name. The plaintiff, on coming to

know about this, immediately gave his objections and the Tahsildar,

Chengalpattu, by his order dated 15.5.2007 cancelled the patta, issued in

the name of the defendant. The defendant filed an application before the

RDO, Chengalpattu, challenging the said order and the said application

was rejected.

3/39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S.No.10 of 2012

6

In the meantime, on 29.3.2007 the sale deed dated

20.10.2006 executed by Kasturi Ammal in favour of the defendant was

cancelled amongst themselves by a Deed of Cancellation of sale deed

dated 29.3.2007 and registered as Doc. No.9228 of 2007 on the file of

the SRO, Tiruporur. The defendant gave a complaint to the police on

5.6.2007 and the same was registered in Crime No.16/2007 on the same

day. The complaint was given against the plaintiff, his brother, his vendor

and two others, as if they only concocted and registered the cancellation

of sale deed.

7

On 14.6.2007 itself the plaintiff came to know about the

above complaint and he immediately rushed to the Sub-Inspector of

Police, DCB, who registered the FIR. In the complaint, the defendant had

menti