Madras High Court
M.T.Sathiappa Thevar vs M.Thalaimuthu Ambalam [Died on 4 December, 2019
Author: N.Sathish Kumar
Bench: N.Sathish Kumar
S.A.(MD)No.938 of 2008
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 30.01.2020
DELIVERED ON : 12.02.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
S.A.(MD)No.938 of 2008
M.T.Sathiappa Thevar ... Appellant
Vs.
1.M.Thalaimuthu Ambalam [Died]
2.O.B.Kesavan [Died]
3.O.M.Umarani
4.Minor O.M.Navaneetha
5.Thankaraj
6.T.Mohan
7.T.Rajaram
8.D.Mariammal
9.M.Seethai Ammal
10.T.Ponnuthai ... Respondents
[Respondents 5 to 10 are brought on record as LRs of deceased
fourth respondent vide Court order dated 04.12.2019 made in
C.M.P(MD)Nos.8103, 8106, 8107 of 2019 in S.A.938 of 2008]
1/26
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.(MD)No.938 of 2008
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C.,
against the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2008 made in A.S.No.
192 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge,
Madurai, reversing the judgment and decree dated 03.07.2006 in
O.S.No.321 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif, Melur.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Srinivasan
Senior Counsel
for Mr.M.P.Senthil
Respondents 1 and 2 : Died
For Respondent No.3 : No appearance
For Respondents 5 to 7 : Mrs.Chithrasampath
for Mr.J.Anandkumar
For Respondents 8 to 10 : Mr.M.Vallinayagam
Senior Counsel
for Mr.D.Nallathambi
JUDGMENT
The appeal is filed against the reversal finding of the First Appellate Court decreeing the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific performance. As against which, the third defendant, purchaser of the property, preferred appeal before this Court. During the admission stage, this Court by judgment dated 20.12.2011, dismissed the appeal, as against which, Special Leave Petition was filed before the Apex Court in S.L.P.No.16486 of 2012. The Apex 2/26 http://www.judis.nic.in S.A.(MD)No.938 of 2008 Court by order dated 01.09.2015, set aside the judgment and remanded the matter before this Court for admitting the second appeal and framing substantial questions of law and for deciding the appeal. Accordingly, the matter has been once again heard, admitted and taken on file and substantial questions of law are framed.
2.Parties are arrived at by their own ranking before the trial Court.
3.The brief facts leading to the filing of this appeal are as follows:
3.1.The defendants 1 and 2 were brothers and owner of the properties in which the plaintiff was a cultivating tenant from the year 1945. After partition, the suit property was allotted to the first defendant. Defendants 1 and 2 agreed to sell the property to the plaintiff for valid consideration of Rs.70,000/- and entered into an agreement dated 15.04.1994 and Rs.20,000/- advance was received. The time for completion of the sale is three [3] years.
Ever since the sale agreement, the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his contract and had sufficient funds to pay the balance consideration. The plaintiff has been requesting the defendants 1 3/26 http://www.judis.nic.in S.A.(MD)No.938 of 2008 and 2 to complete the transaction several time, but they were postponing the sale.
3.2.When the matter stood thus, the plaintiff was surprised to receive a notice from the third defendant on 30.09.1999, stating that the suit property has been purchased by him on 05.08.1994. The above notice was replied by the plaintiff on 26.10.1999. The allegation that the third defendant has met the plaintiff and the tenancy was attornes denied. The defendants 1 and 2 have colluded with each other. The defendants have purchased the property with the notice of the sale agreement dated 15.04.1994. The plaintiff immediately issued legal notice to the defendants calling upon them to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. The first and second defendants neither sent reply nor complied with the notice. Whereas, the third defendant issued a reply notice dated 05.10.1999. Taking advantage of the alleged sale deed dated 05.08.1994, defendant is trying to interfere with the possession of the suit property. Hence, the suit.
3.3.The first defendant filed a statement admitting that the plaintiff is a cultivating tenant and they entered an agreement of sale on 15.04.1994 and received an advance of Rs.20,000/-, and 4/26 http://www.judis.nic.in S.A.(MD)No.938 of 2008 agreed to complete the sale. It is also denied that the defendants colluded with the third defendant and executed a sale deed. It is the contention that the first defendant was running a trader company. At the time, he borrowed a sum of Rs.5,000/- from the third defendant by executing a blank signed pronote. On the date of sale deed, the earlier sale deed dated 15.04.1994 was also informed to the third defendant. In order to avoid any obstruction from the plaintiff, the defendants 1 and 2 were abducted to Kerala and were forced to execute the sale deed in favour of the third defendant. Only after the sale deed, the defendants 1 and 2 were set free.
3.4.Defendants 1 and 2 issued a notice dated 22.08.1995, to the third defendant repudiating the said transaction. After receiving the said mediation notice, mediation was held and the third defendant agreed that he would not act upon the above sale deed. The above sale deed is void. It is the further contention of the first defendant that he was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract and due to unexpected situation, the execution of the sale deed was postponed.
5/26 http://www.judis.nic.in S.A.(MD)No.938 of 2008 3.5.It is the contention of the third defendant that third defendant purchased the suit property from the first defendant and his son through registered deed dated 05.08.1994 and from the date of purchase, he became the owner of the property. After the purchase, the defendant has informed the plaintiff about the purchase and the plaintiff has also agreed to pay 15 bags of paddy per bogum. But, the plaintiff failed to pay the rent from 1994-1999. Therefore, the third defendant has also initiated proceedings under the provisions of the Cultivating Tenants Act.
3.6.The allegation that the sale agreement dated 15.04.1994 is a fabricated document and brought into existence only to defeat the sale of the third defendant is denied. The plaintiff and the defendants 1 and 2 colluded together and created the sale agreement to defeat the sale in favour of the defendant. It is the further contention that the third defendant has purchased the suit property with the consent of the plaintiff, who is a cultivating tenant of the suit property. It is also stated that patta was also transferred in his name and the sale agreement is fabricated one and the suit is barred by limitation. The sale deed in his name is supported by consideration and the allegation that the sale deed 6/26 http://www.judis.nic.in S.A.(MD)No.938 of 2008 was obtained by coercion is also denied. Hence, prays for dismissal of the suit.
3.7.On the side of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 were filed. On the side of defendants, D.Ws. 1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B.1 to B.25 were marked.
3.8.The trial Court analysing the entire evidence has found that Ex.A.2, sale agreement dated 15.04.1994 is validly executed by the defendants 1 and 2. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court concurrently found that Ex.A.1 was validly executed by defendants 1 and 2. Evidences of P.Ws.2 and 3 were relied upon by the Courts below. However, the trial Court has non-suited the plaintiff on the ground of delay in filing the suit and readiness and willingness not proved. The First Appellate Court also re- appreciated the entire evidence, particularly, the evidence of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and found that Ex.A.2, the sale agreement was validly executed by defendants 1 and 2. However, the First Appellate Court has also held that the sale in favour of the third defendant is also executed by the defendants 1 and 2 and their contention that it was executed under coercion has not been established. However, the First Appellate Court has held that the third defendant is not a 7/26 http://www.judis.nic.in S.A.(MD)No.938 of 2008 bona fide purchaser and decreed the suit. As against the same, appeal has been filed. After remand, the appeal was dismissed at the appellate stage and subsequently, remanded by the Apex Court as referred above. Thereafter, the appeal was admitted and the following substantial question of law was framed on 28.09.2018:
“Whether the unregistered agreement of sale will prevail over the registered sale deed?”
4.This Court, after hearing the parties has framed the following two substantial questions of law in addition to the question of law already framed:
i) Whether the First Appellate Court as a final Court of facts erred in appreciating the entire facts?
ii) Whether the First Appellate Court has erroneously appreciated the evidence?
5.After hearing both sides, following additional questions of law are framed:
i) Whether the execution of the sale deed dated 05.08.1994 in favour of the third defendant to avoid stamps is not fraud on registration and whether such sale deed is valid in the eye of law?8/26
http://www.judis.nic.in S.A.(MD)No.938 of 2008
ii) Whether in the absence of any denial as to readiness and willingness, still the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove his readiness and willingness?
6.Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that under Ex.B.3, the property was sold by the first defendant and his son in favour of the third defendant for valuable consideration. Thereafter, the third defendant has informed the plaintiff about his purchase. Based on this, the plaintiff has also agreed to pay the rent to him. As he has not paid the rent a agreed, the third defendant issued a notice on 30.09.1999 to the plaintiff. The reply was sent by the plaintiff only on 26.10.1999. These facts clearly show that the suit agreement was anti-dated and created with collusion of defendants 1 and 2 to defeat the sale deed. Thereafter, a legal notice was sent by the plaintiff on 27.10.1999, which was also properly replied by the third defendant on 05.11.1999, under Ex.A6.
7.It is his contention that the nature of the written statement filed by the first defendant clearly show that there is a collusion between the plaintiff and the defendants to defeat the rights of the 9/26 http://www.judis.nic.in S.A.(MD)No.938 of 2008 third defendant. Further, it is the contention that the agreement said to have been executed in the year 1994, though three years time is stipulated to complete the sale transaction, till such time, no effort has been made by the plaintiff to pay the remaining sale consideration and only after the legal notice sent by the third defendant on 30.09.1999, first time legal notice was issued by the plaintiff to the defendants 1 and 2 under Ex.A.5. Thereafter only the suit has been filed. These facts show that readiness and willingness is totally absent on the part of the plaintiff.
8.It is his further contention that the delay and latches and in the absence of readiness and willingness, specific performance cannot be granted. The First Appellate Court has not appreciated the entire facts thoroughly. Hence, it is his contention that the specific performance cannot be granted. Further, it is his contention that though sale deed Ex.B.3 was registered in Kerala to avoid stamp duty, proper stamp fees has been paid and receipt was also issued by the authorities. Hence, it is his contention that merely because the sale deed was registered in Kerala, the same cannot be a ground to hold that such sale is not bona fide. 10/26 http://www.judis.nic.in S.A.(MD)No.938 of 2008
9.It is his contention that the plaintiff is a cultivating tenant and with his knowledge only, the property has been purchased. Therefore, his contention is that the appellate Court has not properly analysed the entire facts. It is his further contention that only the first and second defendants have colluded together and created an agreement. Further, in the absence of any evidence to show that Ex.B.3 is executed on collusion between the defendants and third defendant, such document cannot be avoided and the same cannot be declared as void. In support of his submissions, he relied on the following judgments:
i) Gopi Vs. H.David and another reported in 2011-1-L.W. 806.
ii) Mahalingam Vs. Gurusamy reported in 2020-1-L.W. 77.
iii) R.Radhakrish Naidu and others Vs. Sasikala and others reported in CDJ 2020 MHC 198.
iv) M.Jayaprakash Narayanan Vs. Santhammal reported in 2018 (1) CTC 701.
v) S.Ashok Kumar Vs. S.Subramaniam reported in 2017 (5) CTC 390.11/26
http://www.judis.nic.in S.A.(MD)No.938 of 2008
vi) K.Rajendran Vs. K.Chinnappa reported in 2014-4- L.W.686.
10.It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel Mr.K.Srinivasan, appearing for the contesting respondents that both the Courts have factually found that the execution of the sale agreement has been validly done and it is the contention that the plaintiff is already in possession as a cultivating tenant which fact is not disputed. The manner in which the plaintiff has deposed before the Court itself clearly indicate that the defendants 1 and 2 were in dominant position. Therefore, though the three years time is stipulated in the agreement, as the defendants 1 and 2 were postponing the agreement, execution of the sale, the plaintiff could not compel them to execute the sale and remained in possession, since he is already in possession as a cultivating tenant. Only for the first time, he came to know that the defendants 1 and his son executed Ex.B.3, in favour of the third defendant in the year 1994, after receiving the legal notice in the year 1994 by the third defendant. It is their contention that defendants 1 and 2 have colluded with the third defendant and entered into a sale deed. 12/26 http://www.judis.nic.in S.A.(MD)No.938 of 2008
11.Admittedly, the plaintiff is a registered cultivating tenant in the suit property. The purpose of entering into such sale deed outside the State itself show that the purchase is not bonafidely done. The possession of the plaintiff in the suit property is lawful and he is registered as a cultivating tenant and notified in the Gazette also. Therefore, when a person is intended to purchase a property, he ought to have made an enquiry whether the possession is a settled possession, which has not been done so. Therefore, it has to be held that any purchase during the existence of earlier agreement is not bona fide and the purchaser has purchased the property with the notice of the earlier agreement.
12.It is his further contention that merely because the plaintiff has not filed a suit within three years as stipulated in the agreement, that itself cannot be a ground to deny the specific performance for the simple reason that the plaintiff being a tenant, he was always under the mercy of the landlords. Therefore, when the landlords postponed the sale, the plaintiff just has to accede to the delay. Only when he received notice from the third defendant, he immediately took steps and filed a suit. The plaintiff was always ready and willing to perform the part of contract. Readiness and 13/26 http://www.judis.nic.in S.A.(MD)No.938 of 2008 willingness pleaded in the plaint has not been denied, specifically in the written statement as well as in the evidence of D.W.3. Ex.D.3 shows that only the xerox copy has been handed over by the defendants. Whereas the title deeds have been filed by the third defendant. That itself clearly show that Ex.D.3 has been executed in collusion between the defendants.
13.It is the further contention that though the First Appellate Court has held that sale is valid, the respondent in appeal certainly can show that such sale is void ab initio and a result of fraud. Hence, it is the contention that in the absence of any reasonable enquiry and admittedly when the plaintiff was already in possession of the property, sale in the name of the third defendant, at no stretch of imagination can be construed as valid and as a bona fide purchase. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following judgments:
i)M.Manoharadhas Vs. C.Arumughaperumal Pillai and another reported in 2003 (1) CTC 539.
ii) Mohd. Kassim Vs. Rajaram reported in 1988 (1) MLJ 447.
iii) R.K.Mohammed Ubaidullah and others Vs. Hajee C.Abdul Wahab reported in (2000) 6 SCC 402, etc., 14/26 http://www.judis.nic.in S.A.(MD)No.938 of 2008
14.The suit has been laid for enforcement of the contract dated 15.04.1994, marked as Ex.A.2. Defendants 1 and 2 have admitted the execution of the agreement. It is their contention that the plaintiff's allegation that defendants are postponing the sale is denied. It is also admitted by both sides that the plaintiff is a cultivating tenant not only in the suit property but in larger extent. To prove Ex.A.1, a true copy of the extract of the tenancy extract register is filed. The agreement Ex.A.2 also shows that since the plaintiff is continuing in possession of the suit property for more than 50 years as per his request, the defendants agreed to sell the property for a total sale consideration of Rs.70,000/- and received an advance of Rs.20,000/- and the time stipulated in the agreement is three years from the date of agreement. It is also stipulated in the agreement that till the sale is executed, the rent has to be regularly paid as usual to the defendants.
15.It is the contention of the third defendant who has purchased the property in the year 1994 under Ex.B.3 that the sale agreement is a result of collusion between the defendants 1 and 2 and the third defendant. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court considered the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 and has recorded 15/26 http://www.judis.nic.in S.A.(MD)No.938 of 2008 the finding that sale agreement is validly executed and not anti- dated as contended by the defendants. This Court has also seen the evidence of P.Ws.2 and 3 in this regard. Nothing could be shown in the cross examination to discrete their evidence. Therefore, the finding of the Court below with regard to the execution of the agreement is well founded and does not require any interference. It is the case of the defendants that this agreement has been anti- dated and came into existence in the collusion of the defendants 1 and 2 and the third defendant.
16.Whereas, it is the case of the plaintiff that defendants 1 and 2 colluded together and created a sale deed, Ex.B.3, only to defeat the rights of the plaintiff, who was continuously in possession of the property for more than 40 years. Ex.B.3, the sale deed in the name of the third defendant was registered in the Registrar Office situated in Parasala, Kerala and Ex.B.3 when carefully seen, shows as if the second item of the suit property, namely ½ cent is said to have been purchased by one of the vendor on the same day, namely, 05.08.1994 and together with the above ½ cent purchased in the same day, the suit property is said to have been conveyed for a sum of Rs.99,000/-. The document has been registered at 12 noon.
16/26 http://www.judis.nic.in S.A.(MD)No.938 of 2008
17.It is specifically recited in the above document that the xerox copy of the title deed alone was handed over to the third defendant at the time of sale, since the subject property was allotted in partition. Whereas, the original partition deed is filed before this Court as a document on the side of the defendants as Ex.B.2. When the recitals in the document Ex.B.3 itself clearly states that only xerox copy was handed over, the possession of original title deeds with the third defendant and filing those documents at exhibit before the Court clearly probabilise the plaintiff's case that the defendants 1 and 2 have colluded with the third defendant and executed the document namely, Ex.B.3. Admittedly, the plaintiff is a cultivating tenant and is in possession of the property. The third defendant as per Ex.B.3 document is said to be an agriculturist residing in Madurai. If really he is intended to purchase the property bonafidely, there was no reason as to why such a document has been registered in the Sub-Registrar's office situated at Kerala. These aspects creates serious doubt about his bonafideness.
18.It is further to be noted that the strip of land namely, ½ cent was shown as second item property in order to register the 17/26 http://www.judis.nic.in S.A.(MD)No.938 of 2008 property within the jurisdiction to get over the jurisdictional issue. It is to be noted that the subject land of ½ cent is said to have been purchased on the same day by the first defendant from the third party. Whether the so called seller had any title to the property or not has not been established and the manner in which it is recited as if the above strip of land is purchased on the same day, no documents were produced. It has to be held that such sale of ½ cent in Kerala is nothing but fictitious only in order to get the registration in Kerala.
19.In this regard, in the case of Venkatarama Rao Vs. Appa Rao reported in AIR 1930 P.C. 91, this Court has held that where the case dealing with a property sought to be transferred by a deed is situated in one district but a small strip of land situated in another district is included in the deed, without any intention on the part of the parties that it should pass under the deed but solely with a view to obtain registration in the latter district, it amounts to fraud on the law of registration. Similar view is also taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mohamed Kassim and others Vs. C.Rajaram and others reported in 1988 (1) MLJ
447. The Division Bench of this Court has held that the sale deed not registered before the Registrar having jurisdiction and 18/26 http://www.judis.nic.in S.A.(MD)No.938 of 2008 registered in Kerala including the fictitious property as void. Following the above judgment, this Court, in another judgment in the case of M.Manoharandhas Vs. C.Arumughaperumal Pillai and another reported in 2003 (1) CTC 539, has held that when the property situated in Tamil Nadu is registered in Kerala including the strip of land falling within the jurisdiction of the Kerala, in order to register the land in Kanyakumari District and when the vendor did not possess or own a strip of land situate n Kerala, the sale deed is void and it entirely constitutes fraud on registration.
20.An attempt was made to show that deficit stamp duty was paid and receipt was obtained. Ex.B.4 receipt is filed. On a perusal of the receipt, there is no particular as to who has received such amount and who has issued receipt. It is to be noted that Section 19-B of the Tamil Nadu Stamp Act, was introduced in Tamil Nadu Stamp Act, by Tamil Nadu Act 43 of 1992. The same reads that when any such property is wholly or partly situated in the State of Tamil Nadu, the copy of such instrument shall, when received in the State of Tamil Nadu under the Registration Act, 1908 (Central Act XVI of 1908), be liable to be charged with the difference of duty as on the original instrument. Therefore, even to pay the deficit 19/26 http://www.judis.nic.in S.A.(MD)No.938 of 2008 stamp duty on the instructions, the registered document should have been received by the concerned authorities as per the Registration Act, 1905 and no endorsement whatsoever is found in Ex.B.3.
21.If such payment has been made, the same should have been found in Ex.B.3 or the documents should have been presented for re-registration, as contemplated under the Registration Act, which has not been done so. When the strip of land was included, it appears to have been purchased on the same day. Such purchase has also not been established. Such strip of land is shown in Ex.B.3 only in order to enable the registration. Such registration, as per the above dictum, would not convey any title to the property.
22.Admittedly, the plaintiff is a registered cultivating tenant. He is in possession for more than 40 years. If really, a person is intended to purchase the property, he ought to have made a reasonable enquiry. The conduct of the third defendant in proceeding to outside the State, getting the document registered in his name, keeping silent for another three years and issuing notice in the year 1999 is nothing but mala fide. When the person claiming to be a bona fide purchaser on good faith, he ought to 20/26 http://www.judis.nic.in S.A.(MD)No.938 of 2008 have made some reasonable enquiry with regard to the property.
23.Admittedly, the plaintiff is a recognized tenant and he is enjoying the property for more than 40 years. In the absence of any reasonable enquiry being made by the third defendant, it would mean that he has not done any enquiry and clandestinely, obtained a sale deed in collusion with the defendants 1 and 2 at Kerala. Therefore, he cannot be called as a bona fide purchaser.
24.In this regard, the Apex Court, in the judgment reported in (2000) 6 SCC 402 [R.K.Mohammed Ubaidullah and others Vs. Hajee C. Abdul Wahab] has held that when reasonable enquiry is not made and the agreement holder is in possession as tenant and entered into an agreement subsequent to purchase, he ought to have made reasonable enquiry. In the absence of any such enquiry held that the burden of proof of good faith is on the purchaser. The bona fide purchaser on good faith is a question of fact, which must be considered and decided on the facts of each case.
25.In the case at hand, the plaintiff is, admittedly, a tenant for more than 40 years and he is in possession of the property and 21/26 http://www.judis.nic.in S.A.(MD)No.938 of 2008 the agreement to purchase the property also clearly established by P.W.2. P.W.3, in his evidence, has clearly stated that he was always ready and willing and only the landlord has denied the completion of sale. Thereafter, only after notice from D.W.3, he came to know that there was a refusal and immediately, filed a suit and the readiness and willingness pleaded by the plaintiff is not denied by the vendor. Similarly, except evasive denial in the written statement, the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the readiness and willingness has also not been denied by the defendant except one line suggestion. The evidence clearly indicates that he referred his landlord as his owner. The manner in which he had referred the vendor as owner itself clearly suggests that he was in the mercy of the land owner to continue in possession and the land owner/s who are in dominant position, postponed the execution even after agreement. The plaintiff has no other go except to wait for completion of sale.
26.Therefore, in such a situation, merely because the sale has not been completed, within the time stipulated in the agreement, it cannot be said that he was not ready and willing to perform the contract. Whereas, immediately, after receiving the notice from the third defendant, he has taken steps and filed the suit. When his 22/26 http://www.judis.nic.in S.A.(MD)No.938 of 2008 evidence clearly shows that he was all along ready and willing to perform the part of contract and the third defendant who claims to be a bona fide purchaser, which is also found to be false, sale deed itself is void under law. He cannot contend that the plaintiff is not entitled to specific performance. Whereas, the vendor's never questioned the readiness and willingness, but, they remained exparte. In view of such fact, this Court is of the view that the finding of the first Appellate Court granting specific performance does not require any interference.
27.No doubt, the judgments cited relating to readiness and willingness, are not applicable to the facts of this case. In one of the judgments reported in 2011 (1) LW 806, cited supra, this Court has held that the document registered in Kerala cannot be declared as void, unless both the parties to the document commit fraud and there was a collusion between the parties. The above judgment also is not applicable to the facts of this case.
28.As discussed above, the very conduct of the parties going to Kerala, when the property is situated in Tamil Nadu and enabling the registration showing the fictitious property, is nothing but clear fraud on registration and both the parties have colluded 23/26 http://www.judis.nic.in S.A.(MD)No.938 of 2008 together and further, the first and second defendants have gone to the extent of saying that they were abducted and kidnapped and under coercion, the document has been executed, which is also found to be false. Further, the document in Ex.B.3 shows that only a xerox copy of the title deed was handed over. Whereas, the original document has been filed by the third defendant as Ex.B.2. The possession of the original documents in the hands of the defendants, contrary to the recitals of Ex.B.3, itself clearly proves the collusiveness between the defendants. In such view of the matter, the decree granted by the first Appellate Court cannot be interfered with. Accordingly, all the substantial questions of law are answered.
29.In the result, the Second Appeal stands dismissed. No costs.
12.02.2020
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
MR
24/26
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.(MD)No.938 of 2008
To
1.The Principal Subordinate Judge,
Madurai.
2.The District Munsif,
Melur.
3.The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
25/26
http://www.judis.nic.in
S.A.(MD)No.938 of 2008
N.SATHISH KUMAR,J.
MR
JUDGMENT MADE IN
S.A.(MD)No.938 of 2008
12.02.2020
26/26
http://www.judis.nic.in