IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON

: 11.04.2019

PRONOUNCED ON : 25.04.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN

S.A.No.1536 of 2003

Ammasi Gounder

...

Appellant/Plaintiff

Vs.

1.Chinnathambi Gounder (Died)

2.Velu

3.Ramu

4.Vellaiyan

...

Respondents/Defendants

(RR2 to 4 are recorded as legal

heirs of the deceased R1 viz.,

Chinnathambi Gounder vide

order of Court dated 11.03.2019

made in S.A.No.1536 of 2003 as

per memo dated 19.07.2016 is

recorded)

Prayer :- Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the

Civil Procedure Code against the Judgement and Decree dated

24.01.2003 passed in A.S.No.125 of 1998 on the file of the

Subordinate Court, Kallakurichi, confirming the judgement and

decree dated 15.10.1998 passed in O.S.No.1105 of 1993 on the

file of the II Additional District Munsif incharge I Additional

District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi.

For Appellant

: Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar

For M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates

For Respondents : Mr.R.Muralidharan

JUDGMENT

In this second appeal, challenge is made to the Judgement

and Decree dated 24.01.2003 passed in A.S.No.125 of 1998 on the

file of the Subordinate Court, Kallakurichi, confirming the

judgement and decree dated 15.10.1998 passed in O.S.No.1105 of

1993 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif incharge I

Additional District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The second appeal has been admitted on the following

substantial questions of law:

“(1). Have not the Courts below

committed an error in dismissing the suit

for declaration on the basis of a oral

sale pleaded by the respondents which was

not substantiated by any evidence?

(2).Whether in law the judgment and

decree of the Courts below are sustainable

when appellant has established his title

to the property by material documents?”

3.Considering the scope of the issues involved between the

parties as regards the subject matter lying in a narrow compass,

it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail.

4.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to

as per their rankings in the trial Court.

5.Suffice to state that the suit has been laid by the

plaintiff for the reliefs of declaration and permanent

injunction.

6.The plaintiff has laid the suit against the defendants

claiming the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction in

respect of the properties described in the plaint schedule.

Three items of the properties are described in the plaint

schedule. The first item is stated to be measuring 0.05 ½ cents

in survey No.6/5 and with reference to the said item, according

to the plaintiff, he has acquired title by way of a sale deed

dated 22.10.1990.

7.Per contra, according to the defendants, the entire extent

in survey No.6/5 belongs to them and they had acquired the same

by way of various sale deeds projected in the matter on their

part and further, according to the defendants, they had

purchased the remaining extent not covered in the abovesaid

sale deeds of an extent of 5 ½ cents from one Veeran S/o.Pavadai

by way of oral sale, accordingly, it is put forth by the

defendants that the patta for the entire extent in survey No.6/5

had been issued in their favour and it is only they, who are in

the possession and enjoyment of the first item of the suit

properties.

8.Inasmuch as the claim of title of the plaintiff in respect

of the first item of the suit properties is stiffly challenged

by the defendants in toto, it is for the plaintiff to sustain

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

his claim of title to the same as pleaded by him and as

abovenoted, the plaintiff relies upon the sale deed dated

22.10.1990 for claiming title to the first item of the plaint

schedule properties. At the foremost, the plaintiff has not

establ