Madras High Court
Palani (Died) vs Muthukumaran on 25 September, 2012
Author: G.Rajasuria
Bench: G. Rajasuria
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 25.09.2012 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. RAJASURIA S.A.No.1028 of 2006 and M.P.Nos.1 of 2006 and 1 of 2012 1. Palani (died) 2. Amsa Ammal 3. Shanmugham 4. Shanthi 5. Bothai .. Appellants Appellants 3 to 5 are brought on record as Lrs of the deceased first appellant vide order of Court dt. 01.04.2008. vs. 1. Muthukumaran 2. Raja 3. Srinivasan 4. Saraswathi Ammal .. Respondents This Appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam in A.S.No.35 of 2005 dated 26.06.2006 reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam in O.S.54 of 2000 dated 22.02.2005. For appellants : Mr.A.K.Kumaraswamy For Respondents : Mr.N.Suresh JUDGMENT
This appeal is focussed at the instance of the defendants, animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 26.06.2006 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam in A.S.No.35 of 2005, reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam in O.S.54 of 2000 dated 22.02.2005.
2. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.
3. Compendiously and concisely, the germane facts absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus:
(a) The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the reliefs of declaration of plaintiffs' title to the suit property and for recovery of possession of the same and for costs.
(b) The pith and marrow of the case of the plaintiffs that could be understood from the plaint as well as from the evidence would run thus:
The plaintiffs 1 to 3 are the sons of P4/Saraswathi Ammal. D2-Amsa Ammal is the wife of D1. The plaintiffs' ancestor Gopal Chettiar was owning a plot at the corner of Alambakkam Road running from the east to west and another road running from North to South; to the west of that plot, one other plot was purchased by the same Gopal Chettiar vide the sale deed Ex.A2 dated 16.08.1942. Subsequently there was partition among the descendants of the original owner; in that, the present plaintiff Muthukumaran was allotted the area covered under Ex.A2 as well the old plot referred to supra situated to the east of the plot, covered under Ex.A2. As such, the first plaintiff happens to be the owner of the two plots situated to the north of Alambakkam Road. While so, according to the first plaintiff, the defendants without any manner of right trespassed into the plot referred to in Ex.A2 which is found reflected in Ex.A4 and put up an improvised structure like shed and dumped bric-a-bracs. After issuing pre suit notice, the suit has been filed.
(c) Whereas, in a bid to torpedo and pulverise the averments/allegations as found set out in the plaint, the defendants filed the written statement the gist and kernel of it would run thus:
The defendants were given with patta in respect of the Natham survey No.271/13, wherein the disputed property constitutes the eastern part. However, illegally that entire Natham SurveyNo.271/13 was divided into two parts 'A' and 'B' and 'B' portion was allotted to the share of the plaintiffs which alone created problem.
Accordingly he would pray for the dismissal of the suit.
(d) Whereupon, the trial Court framed the relevant issues.
(e) During trial, on the plaintiffs' side, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked. On the side of the defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to to B25 were marked. The trial Court appointed an Advocate Commissioner pending the suit, who submitted his report with sketch, which were marked as Exs.C1 and C2.
(f) Ultimately the trial Court dismissed the suit.
3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the same, the plaintiffs preferred the appeal, whereupon the appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit as prayed for.
4. Challenging and impugning the reversal judgment of the first appellate Court, this Second Appeal has been focussed on various grounds suggesting the substantial questions of also.
5. My learned Predecessor framed the following substantial questions of law:
"Is the lower appellate Court justified in decreeing the suit on the basis of the documents which came into existence after the suit and that too without notice to the defendants/appellants?"
(extracted as such)
6. Heard both sides.
7. The learned counsel for the defendants would put forth and set forth his arguments, which could pithily and precisely be set out thus:
(a) The Revenue authorities, properly at the first instance issued patta in respect of the suit property and the adjacent area bearing Natham survey No.271/13. However, pending litigation, it was divided into two parts as '13A' and '13B', and '13B' was allotted to the share of the first plaintiff/Muthukumaran illegally.
(b) The plaintiffs having kept quiet all along despite the defendants raised superstructure in the suit property, holus bolus filed the suit without any basis.
(c) The trial Court appropriately and appositely took into account the fact that Exs.A2 and A4 did not tally with the description as found in the Commissioner's report relating to the disputed propety. However, the first appellate Court for no good reason set aside the reasoned finding of the trial Court, which happened to be the best Court relating to finding of facts. The first appellate Court, if at all it wanted to reverse the reasoned judgment of the trial Court, should have furnished good reasons for that, but it imaginarily correlated the description as found in Exs.A2 and A4 with that of the description as found in the suit property as well as in the Commissioner's report.
(d) Exs.B1 and B2, the pattas and Exs.B3 to B9 the house tax receipts ever since 1986, would amply establish the title of the defendants, but the appellate Court ignoring all those documents, simply decreed the suit, warranting interference in the Second Appeal.
8. Per contra, in a bid, to torpedo and pulverise the arguments as put forth and set forth on the side of the appellants/defendants, the learned counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs, would pyramid his arguments, which could tersely and briefly be set out thus:
(a) Ex.A2 is an ancient document as per the Indian Evidence Act and the description as found set out therein relating to the suit property got reflected in Ex.A4, the partition deed and accordingly, the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and also the property situated to the east of the suit property. While so the lower Court without understanding the realities and the nuances, simply dismissed the suit, whereby it threw the baby along with the bathwater. Whereupon the first appellate Court seeing the wood for trees, appropriately and appositely correctly and legally analysed the evidence and decreed the suit, warranting no interference in the Second Appeal.
(b) De hors the revenue authorities having divided the Natham survey No.371/13 as '13A' and '13B', the first plaintiff established his case independently and in such a case, there is no question of law, much less substantial question of law is involved in this matter and the Second Appeal has to be dismissed.
9. I would like to fumigate my mind with the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court:
(i) (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 545 HERO VINOTH (MINOR) VS. SESHAMMAL.
(ii) 2008(4) SCALE 300 KASHMIR SINGH VS. HARNAM SINGH AND ANOTHER.
(iii) 2009-1-L.W.1 STATE BANK OF INDIA & OTHERS vs. S.N.GOYAL
(iv) (2011) 1 SCC 673 [VIJAY KUMAR TALWAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI] A mere poring over and perusal of those judgments would convey and portray, that the High Court while exercising power under Section 100 of CPC should see as to whether there is any substantial question of law is involved in the matter. However, after framing such substantial question of law, interference would be possible. Hence, it is the paramount duty of the Court to find out as to whether there is any perversity or illegality on the part of the Courts below in deciding the issues involved in the matter.
10. This is a case where on the one side, the plaintiffs would rely on the ancient document Ex.A2 and also Ex.A4 - the document of the year 1974, to buttress and fortify their claim relating to the disputed property. Whereas, on the other hand, the defendants could not rely upon any such document. In fact, they assumed and presumed as though Exs.B1 and B2 are pattas in favour of Palani/D1 relating to the suit property, which in fact they are not so. A mere running of the eye over Exs.B1 and B2, would demonstrate and display that those documents are nothing, but notice relating to proposed patta and it cannot be equated to that of patta. Hence it is obviously and axiomatically clear that the defendants were labouring under the misconception as though the revenue department conferred patta on Palani (D1) relating to the disputed property. Exs.B3 to B9 are all relating to house tax receipts, concerning the house of D1, which is situated not in the suit property, but to the west of the suit property.
11. Undeniably and unarguably, unequivocally and axiomatically it has been made clear that the defendants' house property is situated to the west of the suit property, whereas, the suit property, even as per the defendants, is being used by them by putting up a cow shed and for dumping bricks. In such a case, the tax receipts Exs.B3 to B9, in no way would prove the title of the defendants over the suit property.
12. My mind is redolent and reminiscent of the following maxims:
(i) Affirmantis est probare He who affirms must prove.
(ii) Affirmanti non neganti incumbit probatio: The burden of proof lies upon him who asserts and not upon him who denies.
13. Accordingly the burden of proof is on the plaintiffs to prove their case. It has to be seen as to whether the first appellate Court took into consideration those facts. Let me proceed to discuss Ex.A2, which is obviously an ancient document within the meaning of Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act, emerged at a time when there was no dispute. As per Ex.A2 dated 16.08.1942, Gopal Chettiar, the ancestor of the first plaintiff purchased the disputed property from one Munsamy Gounder, and the description of the property would run thus:
"brhj;J tpguk;
bjd; Mw;f;fhL o. ikyk; rg;o ghjpUg;g[ypa{hpy; khg;g[kid bjd; Myg;ghf;fk; nghFk; tPjpf;F tlf;F bfhz;lhbul;oahh; kidf;F fpHf;F c';fs; kidf;F bjw;Fk; nkw;Fk; ,jpd; kj;jpapy; fp/nk. $hjp mo 30 bj/t/$hjp 64 ,Jt[k; ,jpYs;s ntykuKk; ./////// //////@
14. Subsequently, there emerged a partition in the family of the descendants of the said Gopal Chettiar, wherein the first plaintiff-Muthukumaran, was allotted the suit property along with the property to the east of the suit property. The core question arises as to whether the disputed property could be correlated to the existing documents. The survey number referred to in Ex.A2 as well as in Ex.A4 is '118.' The deposition of the Surveyor (P.W.4) who deposed with reference to the revenue documents which he brought before the Court, would be to the effect that originally the suit property was bearing old survey number 118; Subsequently, during re-survey, R.S.No.192/1 was assigned to it; subsequently it was assigned Natham Survey Numbers, i.e., 271/12, 271/13, 271/15 etc. Now the disputed property is falling on the eastern part of the Natham survey No.271/13. To the east of the disputed property Natham Survey No.271/14 is situated, which also belongs to the first plaintiff.
15. A mere analysis of the Commissioner's report and sketch which was prepared with the help of a surveyor by the Advocate Commissioner, would exemplify and demonstrate that the said south eastern corner plot, is now bearing Natham survey No.271/14 and to the west of that property, the disputed property is situated in S.No.271/13. As such, de hors the sub division of Natham Survey No.271/13, what stood transpired from the above analysis is that the disputed property is situated to the west of the old plot and which was referred to as its eastern boundary in Ex.A2. In such a case, it is glaringly and pellucidly, plainly and palpably clear without any speck of doubt that the plaintiffs established their title over the disputed property.
16. On the other hand, the defendants could place reliance only on the proposed patta notice which even by phantasmagorical thoughts or by any stretch of imagination, cannot be labelled or described, portrayed or projected as one conferring title on D1 over the suit property. For that matter, even patta will not constitute title. Here, it is only a proposed patta notice in favour of the D1, which cannot be constituted as the one conferring valid title on D1. Exs.B3 to B9 could never be taken as documents referring to the disputed property, because they refer only to the house property which is situated to the west of the suit property and hence, the first appellate Court au fait with law and au courant with facts was right in holding that the plaintiffs are the owners of the suit properties, warranting no interference in appeal. Over and above that, the plaintiffs relied on Ex.A1 - the certified copy of decree passed on 10.01.1992. In that it could be seen that the original owner to the west of the plaintiffs' property was one Gopala krishnan and it seems he attempted to trespass into the same disputed property and during the year 1991, such a decree was passed as against him, which would also give strength to the plaintiffs' case. Wherefore, I could see no merit in this appeal. In the result, the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court is confirmed and the aforesaid substantial question is answered.
17.Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered to the effect that the lower appellate Court was justified in decreeing the suit on the basis of the plaintiffs' documents and it is not as though only based on the documents which came into existence after the suit, the decree was passed in favour of the plaintiffs.
G.RAJASURIA, J.
gms Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the first appellate Court. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
25.09.2012 Index : Yes/No Internet: Yes/No To
1. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam.
2. The Additional District Munsif, Tindivanam.
S.A.No.1028 of 2006