Failure to challenge admitted sale and gift deeds renders declaration of title suit non-maintainable; no right to additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

1. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant, aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court.

2. Pleadings: The Plaint in brief:

2.1. The plaintiff sought for the relief of declaration that he is the owner of the suit property and for consequential permanent injunction to restrain the first respondent from interfering with the plaintiff's alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment, either by encroachment or in any other manner.

2.2. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property was originally belonging to Avudaiappa Pillai, who sold the same to two brothers, namely, Bhakkir Muhaideen Rowther and Asan Mohideen Rowther. Bhakkir Muhaideen Rowther purchased ½ share from his brother Asan Mohideen Rowther and was in enjoyment of the entire property and on 10.08.1962, he sold it to one Pirammanayagam Pillai. On 24.05.1978, the plaintiff purchased the suit property from Pirammanayagam Pillai and the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment eversince. On 30.06.2010, the first defendant approached the plaintiff for purchase of the suit property. However, the plaintiff refused, which provoked the first defendant to approach the police authorities by lodging a complaint on 03.07.2010. At the enquiry, the plaintiff was put on notice about the claim of the first defendant that the plaintiff had sold the property to the first defendant in the year 1994 itself and possession has, eversince remained only with the first defendant. The plaintiff's thumb impressions were obtained out of compulsion and the plaintiff was threatened that if he did not hand over possession within one week, further complaints would be foisted against him. Contending that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in peaceful possession, the plaintiff filed the suit.

3. Written statement filed by the 1 s t defendant in brief:

The contesting first defendant, meeting the plaint averments and allegations, filed a written statement, claiming absolute right under sale deed dated 20.05.1991 in and by which, the plaintiff executed the document in favour of Minor.Essakiraj, represented by his wife and guardian Arumugathammal and that the first defendant has purchased the property subsequently on 14.09.1994 under registered sale deed and has put in possession of the suit property. The police complaint was given only to thwart the unlawful attempt of the plaintiff to grab the suit property, having already sold the same.

4. Issues framed by the trial Court:

Based on the pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration that the suit property is absolutely belonged to the plaintiff?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant not to interfere the plaintiff by way of encroachment or in any manner?

3. Whether it is true that the 1st defendant has purchased the suit property from the plaintiff and his family members?

4. What other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to?

5. Trial:

At the trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and exhibited Ex.A1 to Ex.A27 on the side of the plaintiff. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant examined himself as D.W.1 besides six other witnesses were examined as D.W.2 to D.W.7 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B7 were marked.

6. Decision of the trial Court:

The trial Court, found that the plaintiff has not established his case, dismissed the suit.

7. Decision of the First Appellate Court:

Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred an Appeal in A.S.No.51 of 2015 before the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli. P