Madras High Court
Antony vs Vaithyalinga Chettiar on 18 April, 2012
Author: T.Raja
Bench: T.Raja
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated:- 18.04.2012 Coram:- The Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.RAJA Second Appeal No.246 of 2007 Antony ... Appellant vs. 1.Vaithyalinga Chettiar 2.Sagayaraj 3.Paulraj ... Respondents Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC. as against the judgment and decree, dated 27.11.2006, passed by the Sub-Court, Gingee, in A.S. No.21 of 2005, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 10.01.2003, passed in O.S.No.351 of 1996, by the Additional District Munsif's Court, Gingee. For Appellant : Mrs.Hema Sampath, SC for Ms.K.Meenal For Respondents : Mr.N.Suresh for R2 and R3 No Appearance for R1 J U D G M E N T
The present second appeal has been brought by the plaintiff, who filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif Court, Gingee, in O.S.No.351 of 1996, on the ground that the plaintiff has purchased the suit property by a sale deed, dated 25.10.1985, Ex.A2, from one Amalorpavameri, who had purchased from one Periyanayagam, under sale deed, dated 09.04.1972, Ex.A1.
2. A detailed written statement was filed by the defendant/respondent herein, taking a stand that the plaintiff is not the absolute owner of the entire suit property, since she had purchased under sale deed, dated 25.10.1985, from one Amalorpavameri, only an extent of 31.5' east-west and 45' north-south. It was also the case of the defendant/respondent herein that after filing of suit, the plaintiff/appellant herein has constructed his house extending on the east-west side more than what the plaintiff has purchased under Ex.A2, sale deed, dated 25.10.1985. Therefore, the prayer sought for by the plaintiff was heavily opposed. Under these circumstances, the trial Court took up the matter and came to the conclusion that since the plaintiff has made categorical and explicit admission that the plaintiff has purchased only an extent of 31.5' east-west and 45' north-south and the defendant has also equally made similar admission that there was no objection for the Court to grant any declaration to that extent, but, however, taking note of the fact that the plaintiff has not properly mentioned the correct description of the property with correct extent of the property, declained to grant the relief sought for. Aggrieved by the same, when an appeal was filed before the learned Sub-Court, Gingee, in A.S.No.21 of 2005, the first appellate Court affirmed the findings and conclusions reached by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal has been filed.
3. This Court, at the time of entertaining the second appellant, framed the following substantial questions of law;-
"i. Is the Courts below right in not considering the legal principle that boundaries would prevail over the measurement and extent of the property described when conflict has arisen in between those two in the said document? and ii. Are the Courts below wrong in not considering the principle of estoppel against the defendant/respondent as they are claiming right over the properties including the suit property as descendants of Periyanayagam, who is the vendor's vendor of the plaintiff?"
4. While addressing on the substantial question of law, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant placed three fold submissions;
a) Learned trial Court has wrongly dismissed the plaintiff's suit by wrongly holding that the plaintiff failed to show any cause of action for grant of relief, particularly, when he made his claim for declaration and permanent injunction before the trial Court and that was also supported by the admission made by the defendant, that the plaintiff has purchased admittedly 31.5' east-west and 45' north-south, learned trial Court, having sufficient power to grant, if not larger relief, at least the lesser relief by accepting the admission made by the parties to the suit, should have granted limited declaration along with the permanent injunction in respect of 31.5' east-west and 45' north-south. Therefore, on that basis, it was submitted that it is not open to the Courts below to hold against the plaintiff that no cause of action was made out for grant of relief sought for.
b) that when the defendants have not properly established as to whether they are legal heirs of Periyanayagam by adducing evidence and subsequently, they also filed a suit seeking declaration of title over the rest of the property of the Periyanayagam, if any observation is made by this Court, this might have bearing upon the trial Court, that have seized the suit filed by the defendant in respect of the title. On this basis, she further prayed that no observation should be made on the title of the property, namely, other than 31.5' east-west and 45' north-south.
c) that when the plaintiff has purchased the suit property from his vendor Amalapavamary, by a sale deed, dated 25.10.1985, Ex.A2, by mentioning the proper description of the suit property, even though the plaintiff has failed to mention the correct and exact extent of the suit property in the suit, the correct description of the property as appended in the sale deed, will prevail over the extent. Ignoring these vital legal aspects, the impugned judgments were passed by the Courts below, which require property reconsideration.
5. Opposing the said argument, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that though the plaintiff was able to get his claim viz; a decree for declaration with a consequential permanent injunction against the defendants in respect of 31.5' east-west and 45' north-south, both the Courts below, by taking note of the conduct of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has deliberately failed to mention the correct extent of the property purchased by him, found against the plaintiff and when there has been a specific finding by the Courts below holding against the plaintiff that he cannot seek for grant of injunction or title beyond 31.5' east-west and 45' north-south, such finding need not be interfered by this Court under Section 100, which gives a limited jurisdiction to this Court to examine the case of the parties on the substantial question of law.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.
7. It is well settled law by the Apex Court as well as by this Court that the admission is the best piece of evidence, which gives solution to the controversy raised by the parties to any judicial proceedings. In this context, it is pertinent to refer to Section 58 of the Evidence Act, 1872, which contemplates that facts admitted need not be proved. As per Section 58, no fact need to be proved in any proceedings which the parties thereto or their agents agree to admit at the hearing. While considering the value of the admission made by one of the parties to the suit, the Apex Court had also dealt with the admission made under Section 58 of the Act in Nagindas Ramdas v. Dalpatram Iccharam (AIR 1974 SC 471), wherein it is held thus:-
"Admissions, if true and clear, are by far best proof of the case admitted. Admissions in pleadings or judicial admissions, admissible under Section 58 of the Evidence Act made by the parties or their agents at or before the hearing of the case, stand on a higher footing than evidentiary admissions. The former class of admissions are fully binding on the party that makes them and constitute a waiver of proof. They by themselves can be made the foundation of the rights of the parties."
Therefore, as stated above, when the plaintiff, by standing in the witness box, has clearly admitted before the Courts below that he has purchased only 31.5' east-west and 45' north-south and this has been admitted by the defendant, the trial Court, in my considered opinion, is legally entitled to grant the lesser relief. Therefore, when there has been an admission by the plaintiff and the said admission has been supported by the defendant, I am of the considered opinion that the Courts below should have granted the lesser relief, namely declaration of title in respect of 31.5' east-west and 45' north-south in favour of the plaintiff. As this has not been granted, this Court, in view of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Nagindas Ramdas's case (cited supra), by giving due credence to the admission made by the parties, is inclined to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below, by granting declaration of title in favour of the plaintiff/appellant herein only in respect of 31.5' east-west and 45' north-south alone. Since the defendants/respondents herein have also filed a suit on the file of the learned Additional District Munsif Court, Gingee, seeking for declaration in respect of the rest of the properties, this Court does not wish to say anything more on the issue.
8. In the above terms, the second appeal is partly allowed. Consequently, the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are set aside. No Costs. M.P.No.1 of 2007 is closed.
rkm To
1. The Sub-Court, Gingee.
2. The Additional District Munsif Court, Gingee