Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Ambalavanar Trust Board Tr.Trustee vs K.Thirunavukkarasu Mudaliyar on 16 March, 2023
Bench: Abhay S. Oka, Rajesh Bindal
1
CA Nos.8075-8076/2010
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No(s). 8075-8076/2010
AMBALAVANAR TRUST BOARD TR.TRUSTEES Appellant(s)
VERSUS
K.THIRUNAVUKKARASU MUDALIAR ETC. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. These appeals arise out of two suits filed by the appellants-trust. The suits were filed on title for relief of injuction.
In the first suit, the appellants-trust relied upon its sale deed dated 21.02.1986 claiming that the sale deed was executed in repect of the subject property by one W.T. Masilamani Mudaliyar in favour of the appellants-trust. Both the District Court and the High Court have declined to rely upon the photocopy of the alleged certified copy of the said Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Indu Marwah Date: 2023.03.22 document which was marked as Exh.P-1. There is a concurrent 16:41:43 IST Reason: finding of the District Court and the High Court on this 2 CA Nos.8075-8076/2010 aspect. We agree with the said finding for the simple reason that if according to the case of the appellants, the original sale deed was not in their possession, they could always lead secondary evidence by producing the certified copy and by proving the same. Moreover, we find from the perusal of the plaint that the sale deed dated 21.02.1986 was not even relied upon.
As regards the second suit, we find that the case of the appellants-plaintiffs was based only on oral sale. In fact, it is their specific case in the plaint that one W.T. Nataraj Mudaliar sold the subject property at the price of Rs.100/- and the sale was oral sale.
Sale of immovable property worth Rs.100/- or more can be executed only by a registered sale deed as required under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act,1882. That is how, the District Court and the High Court have ruled against the appellants-trust.
We find no error in the view taken by the District Court and the High Court that the appellants-trust failed to prove title in respect of the property subject matter of both the suits. Therefore, it is not necessary for us to go into any other question which was agitated before the High Court.
Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. 3 CA Nos.8075-8076/2010 There shall be no order as to costs.
………………………………J. [Abhay S. Oka] …………………………………J. [Rajesh Bindal] New Delhi 16.03.2023 4 CA Nos.8075-8076/2010 ITEM NO.106 COURT NO.16 SECTION XII S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Civil Appeal No(s). 8075-8076/2010 AMBALAVANAR TRUST BOARD TR.TRUSTEES Appellant(s) VERSUS K.THIRUNAVUKKARASU MUDALIAR & ORS. Respondent(s (IA No. 99176/2017 - EARLY HEARING APPLICATION) WITH SLP(C) No. 15148/2011 (XII) (IA No.120464/2017-IA FOR BRINGING LRS ON RECORD ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT and IA No.120470/2017-IA FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING ORIGINAL DEATH CERTIFICATE OF PETITIONER NO 2 and IA No.120473/2017-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No.120477/2017-IA FOR SETTING ASIDE ABATEMENT AGAINST THE DECEASED and IA No.120479/2017-CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING(Case is to be listed alongwith CA 8075-8076/2010)) Date : 16-03-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ABHAY S. OKA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL For Appellant(s) Mr. Shivabalan Murugan, Adv.
Mr. Bhargava V. Desai, AOR Ms. Pallavi Maurya, Adv.
Ms. Devina Bhandari, Adv.
Mr. Utkarsh Vats, Adv.
Mr. Deepanshu, Adv.
Mr. V. Balaji, Adv.
Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Gautam Narayan, AOR Mr. Ratnakar Dash, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Vasantha Kumar A., Adv.
Mr. Sanchit Vashithe, Adv.
Mr. Karunakar Mahalik, AOR Mr. Naresh Kumar, AOR Mr. S. Nandakumar, Adv.
Ms. Deepika Nandakumar, Adv. 5 CA Nos.8075-8076/2010 Mr. Anand Murthi Rao, Adv.
Mr. T. Harish Kumar, AOR Mr. Navneet Dugar, Adv.
Mr. Subham Kothari, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Civil Appeal No(s). 8075-8076/2010 Appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. SLP(C) No. 15148/2011 Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. There is a concurrent finding of fact recorded by the three courts below. Hence, No case for interference is made out in exercise of power under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Special Leave Petition stands dismissed.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
(INDU MARWAH) (AVGV RAMU) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER(NSH)
(signed order is placed on the file)