Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 62443
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.Govindarajan Thilakavadi, J
Senthamizhselvi – Appellant
Versus
Subburayan (died) – Respondent
S.A. Nos.186 & 372 of 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Chenthoori Pugazendhi for K. K. Balu
For the Respondents: Mr. S. Vediappan for R2, Ms. Chenthoori Pugazendhi for K. K. Balu
The validity of sale deeds is determined by the specified boundaries, which supersede discrepancies in area measurement, affecting rightful possession.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 100 - Second appeal against judgment concerning title, possession, and encumbrances on land - The court examined sales related to land in specific survey numbers, ultimately affirming the first appellate court's decision which upheld the dismissal of the suit for lack of title by the plaintiffs. (Paras 1-15)
(B) Land Transactions - Validity of Sale Deeds - The court clarified that boundaries specified in sale deeds take precedence over the measurement of land when conflicts arise, impacting claims of ownership. (Paras 12-13)
(C) Possession - The plaintiff's claims of possession were challenged based on subsequent sales made by the vendor to the defendant, leading to a determination that the defendant was in rightful possession. (Paras 11, 14)
(D) Judicial Standard - The court reiterated that it will not disturb lower court findings unless there is clear evidence of errors, reaffirming the importance of lower court assessments in second appeals. (Paras 14-15).
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background regarding property ownership. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. arguments regarding claims of property ownership. (Para 4 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's analysis on property ownership and boundaries. (Para 6 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 4. substantial questions of law determined by the court. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. final conclusion and dismissal of appeals. (Para 15) |
COMMON JUDGMENT
The appellants in S.A. No.186/2020 are the defendants and the appellants in S.A. No.372/2020 are the plaintiffs in O.S. No.326 of 2003 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Villupuram. The plaintiffs have filed the said suit for declaration of title, injunction, recovery of possession in respect of item No.2 and for mesne profits and for declaring the sale deed in respect of the suit properties as null and void.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the trial court.
3. The case of the plaintiffs is that One Mannangatti, son of Velu Nartar was the owner of the properties measuring 0.31 cents in S.No.202/4, 0.32 cents in S.No.202/5, 0.50 cents in S. No.202/6, 1.52 acres in S.No.202/7, 0.85 cents in S.No.202/8 and 0.78 cents in S.No.202/9 as one block and he along with his legal heirs sold the entire 0.31cents in R.S. No.202/4 and 0.02 cents out of 0.32 cents in R.S. No.202/5 totalling 0.33 cents to the 2nd plaintiff. Further on the same day they have sold 1 acre i.e., remaining 0.30 cents in R.S. No.202/5 and 0.70 cents out of 1.52 acres in Rs.No.202/7 for a valid consideration in favour of one Pazhani S/o. Ramasamy padayachi vide Ex. A3 registered sale deed. As per the above 2 sale deeds out of 2.15 acres in R.S.No.202/4, 202/5 & 202/7, 1.33 acre were sold and remaining extent in the above is 0.82 cents in S.No.202/7 out of 2.15 acres on the eastern side. Mannagatti Natar died intestate. Hence his wife Kasthuri and his three sons Arul, Ramesh and Maran who succeeded to his estate, had sold the remaining extent of 0.82 cents in R.S.No.202/7 in favour of 1st plaintiff vide a registered sale deed dated 26.11.1998. Though they have sold 0.82 cents, due to inadvertence it has been mentioned as 0.67 cents, but delivered the entire remaining extent of 0.82 cents. The plaintiffs are in possession and enjoyment of the 0.82 cents. The plaintiffs' vendors subsequently jointly conveyed another extent of 0.67 cents on the southern side of 1.63 acres in R.S.No.202/8 and R.S.No.202/9 to the 1st plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 11.07.2001. The above establishes that the plaintiffs' vendors had alienated the entire 0.82 cents in RS No.202/7 in favour of the 1st plaintiff. While so, the defendants have made an encumbrance to an extent of 0.03 cents in S.No.202/4 and 202/5, which is the 1st item of the suit property and also made an encumbrance to an extent of 0.06 cents in the north out of 0.82 cents in 1.52 acres in S.No.202/7,which is the 2nd item of the suit property. The plaintiffs vendors have already sold the entire lands in S.No.202/4, 202/5 and 202/7 and hence they did not have any alienable rights or title over the said properties. The sale transactions in respect of 1st and 2nd item of suit properties by the plaintiffs' vendors in favour of the 1st defendant is invalid. Since the 1st defendant along with the other defendants, is attempting to disturb the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the present suit for declaration and injunction and recovery of possession in respect of item No.2 and for mesne profits and for declaring the sale deed in respect of the suit properties as null and void.
4. The suit was resisted by the defendants by stating that it is incorrect to state that the properties in S.No.202/4, 202/5, 202/6, 202/7, 202/8 and 202/9 form as one block. It is also incorrect to state the 2nd plaintiff has purchased 0.33 cents out of the entire 2.15 acres, as S.No.202/6 lies in between S.No.202/4, 202/5 and 202/7. The bounda
