Back
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
Sathya Poondi – Appellant
Versus
Indira – Respondent
Property - Ownership - Transfer of Property Act Sections - The judgment addresses the legal principles surrounding ownership and possession, invalidating a contested sale deed based on lack of title by the vendor, ultimately confirming the plaintiff's ownership based on valid transaction history.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff claimed ownership of a property based on a series of transactions back to the original owner. The defendant, however, purchased the property via a later sale deed from the original owner's legal heirs who purportedly had no title, prompting litigation over rightful ownership.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the original title passed from seller to seller without interruption to the plaintiff, and that the defendant's purchase was from parties without lawful title, making the sale deed in favor of the defendant null and void.
Issues: The key issues included whether the plaintiff's predecessors had valid title to the property, if the sale deed favoring the defendant was valid, and if the plaintiff was entitled to a permanent injunction against the defendant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the plaintiff’s predecessors had valid title and that the defendant could not claim valid ownership due to a lack of title from her vendors, upholding the principle that clear and marketable title is essential in property transactions.
Final Decision: The suit is decreed in favor of the plaintiff, with costs, and the defendant's counterclaim is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
The Suit had been filed by Sathya Poondi Badrinarayanan @ Sathya Poondi, represented by her father and power agent P.S.Badrinarayanan, seeking a Judgment and Decree against the defendant, Indira, w/o. Chellasamy to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and to restrain the defendant from interfering with her peaceful possession and to declare that the sale deed dated 10.07.2015 executed in favour of the defendant by the legal heirs of late J.Deepak and others through their power agent Ramakrishnan, is null and void and to cancel the same and to grant a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit property and for costs.
2. In the plaint, it had been stated that the suit property being land and building at New Door No. 41 and old Door No.16, Chakrapani Street Extension, Kodambakkam, Chennai, measuring 2625 sq.ft., belongs to the plaintiff absolutely. It had been stated that on 07.02.1973, Lakshmi Ammal had purchased an old house in a larger area of land measuring 4080 sq.ft., from T.R.Kamala for consideration of Rs.30,000/-. On the same day, the purchaser Lakshmi Ammal registered a simple mortgage in favour of J.P.Bharwani, mortgaging the entire property for borrowal of Rs.15,000/-. She did not discharge the mortgage debt. The mortgagee therefore entrusted the mortgage to M/s. Murray & Co., Auctioneers to bring the property to auction. The property was auctioned and sale deed was executed on
21.08.1978 in favour of Sirumal Tirithdas Jigtiani.
3. On 09.05.1983, the said auction purchaser executed a registered release deed in favour of J.Deepak, son of J.P.Bharwani. It was stated that J.Deepak was the real owner of the property conveyed by sale deed dated
21.08.1978 and that the purchaser was a benamidhar.
4. Eventhough, Lakshmi Ammal had executed the mortgage deed and the property had been brought to auction, she continued to be in possession.
5. On 25.08.1983 out of the larger extent of 4080 sq.ft., a part of the same measuring 1455 sq.ft., of land was sold by J.Deepak to Nagarajan. Subsequently, Nagarajan constructed a house in the land purchased by him. Since Lakshmi Ammal was in possession, she and her husband R.Raju also joined as parties to the sale deed along with J.Deepak.
6. On 15.07.1988, the suit property which is land and building measuring 2625 sq.ft., which was the remainder portion out of the larger area of 4080 sq.ft, was sold by J.Deepak to R.Raju.
7. On 22.11.1996, R.Raju sold the suit property to Vatsala, the mother of the plaintiff. After purchase, Vatsala had mutated her name in the Government records. It is contended that Vatsala, her husband, the plaintiff and their other daughter are living in the suit property. On 14.10.2009, Vatsala settled the property in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the property described in the schedule to the plaint.
8. The case of the defendant is that she had purchased this property, namely, 2625 sq.ft., and also the property which had been earlier sold to G.Nagarajan measuring 1455 sq.ft., from the legal heirs of the original owner J.Deepak by a sale deed dated 10.07.2015.
9. It is contended by the plaintiff that the sale deed executed in favour of the defendant was not valid and would not confer title. It was stated that the covenants in the sale deed and the payment of sale consideration are all false and fictitious. It is contended that the defendant did not have the source to pay the sale consideration of Rs.2,50,64,000/-. It had also been stated that the power agent of the vendors and also the defendant were both aware of the sale deeds dated 15.07.1988 and 22.11.1996 executed in the name of R.Raju and in the name of Vatsala, mother of the plaintiff. It had therefore been stated that the defendant was not a bona fide purchaser. The plaintiff claimed to be in possession and also stated that the two tenants in the ground floor are paying rents to the plainti
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
