The court upheld the validity of the sale deed establishing exclusive ownership despite competing claims, affirming that burden of proof lies on the party challenging the deed.

COMMON JUDGMENT

Challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below rendered in common judgment and decree passed in A.S.Nos. 34 and 35 of 2021 by the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri arising out of findings rendered in common judgment and decree passed in O.S.Nos.11 of 2016 and 193 of 2017 on the file of Principal Sub-Judge, Krishnagiri, these Second Appeals were preferred by the defendants 1 and 3.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are denoted as per the ranking in the suit in O.S.No.11 of 2016 before the trial court.

3. Brief facts of the case is as follows :-

The appellants/plaintiffs in S.A.No. 443 of 2023 filed a suit in O.S.No.193 of 2017 (Originally O.S. No. 14 of 2016 seeking for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from encumbering over the suit properties as described in the plaint schedule in Survey Nos. 59 and 60 situated at Errahalli Village, Krishnagiri Taluk, as well as mandatory injunction directing the defendant to reconvey the suit property to the 1st plaintiff firm.

4. The respondent/plaintiff in both the Second Appeals S.A.No.443 and 444 of 2023 had also filed a suit in O.S.No. 11 of 2016 praying for a declaration to declare her title to the suit lands as described in plaint schedule as well as permanent injunction against defendants not to interfere with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the properties and for consequential relief of claiming damages. Both the parties are one and the same and so also, the suit properties also same in Survey Nos. 59 and 60, situated at Errahalli-1 Village, Krishnagiri Taluk. Therefore, both the suits were tried jointly and issues were framed. On hearing both oral and documentary evidence adduced on their side and finally the trial judge held that the suit filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.193 of 2017 was dismissed and the suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No. 11 of 2016 was partly decreed declaring the title in favour of her and also granted permanent injunction.

5. Challenging the said findings, the defendants have preferred Appeal Suits in A.S.Nos.34 and 35 of 2021 in respect of suit filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.11 of 2016 and the suit filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.193 of 2017. The first appellate judge also on analysing both oral and documentary evidence, framed points for consideration and finally dismissed both appeals by confirming the findings of the trial judge. Challenging the said findings, now the present Second Appeals were preferred by both plaintiff and defendants.

6. Brief facts of the case is as follows:-

According to plaintiffs in O.S.No.193 of 2017, the 2nd plaintiff and defendant have constituted the 1st plaintiff firm vide partnership deed dated 01.10.1997 for carrying out the business of export and import. While so, the defendant resigned from the firm for the reason best known to her and consequently, a reconstitution deed was entered on 19.09.2012, wherein the 2nd plaintiff's wife was inducted as a new partner in the place of defendant. Thereafter, the 2nd plaintiff in his individual capacity had ventured to purchase the suit properties, for which Power of attorney dated 28.09.2006 was obtained from the owners Venkatesan, Gnanasekaran and Rajasekaran in favour of 2nd plaintiff. In order to add the deposit of granite into the asset of partnership firm, both 2nd plaintiff and defendant wanted to purchase the suit properties, accordingly, by mutual understanding between them, the property was purchased in her name by contributing the funds from the accounts of 1st plaintiff firm and by her letter dated 21.09.2012, the defendant has agreed to convey the suit properties