Oral sale is invalid to pass title under law.

1

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :22.12.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR

Rev.Appl.No.28 of 2021

and C.M.P.No.2492 of 2021

and S.A.No.125 of 2020

1.Sivasankaran

2.Thavamani @ Mani

...Appellants

Vs.

1.Anjanakshi @ Anjalakshmi

2.The Tahsildar,

Taluk Office,

Arakkonam

...Respondents

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of

C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2020 made in

S.A.No.125 of 2020 passed by Hon'ble Mr.Justice K.Kalyanasundaram.J on

the file of this Court.

For Appliants

: Mr.Jeremiah Gregory John

For Respondents : Mr.V.Raghavachari

Senior Counsel

for Ms.V.Srimathi for R1

Mr.J.C.Durairaj

Additional Government Pleader

for R2

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

2

J U D G M E N T

This review application is filed seeking review of the

judgment and decree passed by this Court in S.A.No.125 of 2020.

2. The first respondent herein filed a suit for declaration

of the title and recovery of possession. She also prayed for a declaration

that settlement deed dated 19.07.2010 executed by the first applicant in

favour of his wife/second applicant was null and void. She also sought for a

decree to set aside the earlier ex-parte decree passed in O.S.No.221 of 1999

on the file of District Munsif Court, Arakkonam in a suit filed by first

applicant was null and void. The first respondent also sought for a

permanent injunction restraining the applicants from interfering with her

possession over the suit property.

3. The trial Court decreed the suit granting declaration of

title and recovery of possession in favour of first respondent. The trial

Court also granted a declaration that settlement deed executed by first

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

3

applicant in favour of second applicant was null and void and not binding

upon the first respondent. The declaration sought for by the first respondent

in respect of the ex-parte decree passed against her was refused by the trial

Court. The prayer for injunction was also negatived. Aggrieved by the

said judgment, the applicants herein preferred an appeal in A.S.No.32 of

2016, on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Vellore @ Ranipet and

the same was also dismissed. Challenging the concurrent findings against

him, the applicants preferred second appeal before this Court and the same

was also dismissed. Now seeking review of the said judgment and decree

passed in the second appeal, the applicants are before this Court.

4. The first respondent claimed title over the suit property

by virtue of registered sale deed dated 07.10.1990. It was the case of the

first respondent that the first applicant herein illegally trespassed into the

property and illegally created a settlement deed in favour of second

applicant. The suit was mainly resisted by the applicants on the ground that

originally the first applicant entered the property as a cultivating tenant

under first respondent. Thereafter, he entered into a sale agreement for

purchase of the suit property for sale consideration of Rs.2,58,000/- and it

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

4

was also claimed by the first applicant that he paid an advance amount of

Rs.50,000/- on the date of agreement namely 21.10.1999. Subsequently,

there was misunderstanding and exchange of notices between the parties

and new agreement was entered into on 19.05.2000.

5. The applicants also pleaded entire sale consideration

was subsequently paid to the first respondent and first applicant orally

purchased the property from first respondent. Thus they claimed that 1^st

applicant had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as

absolute owner to the knowledge of the first respondent. Thereafter, on

19.07.2010, in his capacity as owner of the property, he executed the

settlement in favour of second applicant. On these pleadings, th