Court upheld that possession and intent of the sale deed determine ownership. Declarations of nominal documents invalidate claims on property. Limitation and court fee assessments were appropriately made.

JUDGMENT

In this Second Appeal, challenge is made to the judgment and decree dated 05.09.2018 passed in A.S. No.177 of 2017, on the file of the XVI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, reversing the Judgment and decree dated 03.11.2016 passed in O.S.No.1063 of 2012, on the file of the XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court.

3. The 4^th defendant in O.S. No.1063 of 2012 is the appellant herein. The 1^st respondent, as plaintiff, filed the above suit for the following reliefs:

(a) Declaring the sale deed dated 03.05.1982 registered as document No.4723/82 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Sembium, executed by the plaintiff in favour of the 1^st defendant as sham and nominal and consequently declare the plaintiff to be the owner of the property more fully described in schedule-B of the plaint.

(b) Declaring the sale deed dated 15.11.2011 registered as document No.4723 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Registrar, Sembium, executed by the 1^st defendant in favour of the 2^nd defendant as illegal, void and ab initio and not binding on the plaintiff and consequently set aside the same and for costs.

4. The case of the plaintiff is that the he has purchased a vacant land measuring 3,302 sq. ft. as described in the suit 'A' schedule property by virtue of a sale deed dated 30.03.1981 and ever since the purchase, he is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the same. In the said property, the plaintiff has constructed a house measuring 2839 sq. ft and residing there with his family and kept the remaining portion, which is described as 'B' schedule property in the plaint, for the purpose of parking the vehicles and for other household purposes. In the year 1982, the agnates of the plaintiff started claiming share over the properties and insisted the plaintiff to give the 'B' schedule property since it remained vacant. Therefore, in order to safeguard the 'B' schedule property, at the instance of the 1^st defendant, the plaintiff executed a sale deed dated 03.05.1982 in favour of the 1^st defendant to over come the above situation. Though the recitals of the sale deed would state that a sum of Rs.1,690/- was paid towards sale consideration by the 1^st defendant, no sale consideration was passed since it was only a sham and nominal document. Moreover, the possession was not handed over to the 1^st defendant and the same was retained by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, he alone is in possession and enjoyment of the 'B' schedule property as his own to the knowledge of the 1^st defendant by paying necessary property tax and water charges and patta for the "B" schedule property also still stands in his name. The original title deeds pertaining to 'A' schedule property is in the custody of the plaintiff. He had also availed loan to the tune of Rs.4,000/- from Perambur Co-opertive Building Society by depositing the original deed on 16.10.1982 and redeemed the same on 09.12.1987. In the year 1988, the plaintiff has also availed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as housing loan from LIC Housing Finance for construction of his house and also created another mortgage on 26.07.2005 in favour of Bank of India, Anna Nagar Branch, Chennai. The above three mortgages were done by the plaintiff to the knowledge of the 1^st defendant. In the year 1994, the plaintiff let out a shop situated in the 'A' schedule property for rent to one M. Nandhakumar for the purpose of carrying his business under the name and style of "Channel 9 satellite System". After the demise of said Nandhakumar, his son Vinodh Kumar is carrying on his business by using the 'B' sche