High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
Murugiah Gounder v. Subramaniyan - S.A.No.929 of 2005  RD-TN 669 (17 September 2005)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice M.CHOCKALINGAM
S.A.No.929 of 2005
CMP.No.12842 of 2005
Murugiah Gounder ... Appellant -vs-
Subramaniyan ... Respondent Second Appeal filed under section 100 CPC against the judgment and decree of the Additional Sub Judge, Nagapattinam made in A.S.No.81 of 2004 dated 23.12.2004, against the judgment and decree of the District Munsif, Nagapattinam made in O.S.NO.553 of 2000 dated 19.07.2004. For Appellant : Mr.Veera Kathiravan
For Respondent : ---
This second appeal has been brought forth by the appellant challenging the judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam made in A.S.No.81/2004, wherein, the judgment of the District Munsif, Nagapattinam made in a suit for declaration and consequential permanent injunction in O.S.No.553/2000, was affirmed.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out even to admit the second appeal.
3. The plaintiff, who is the respondent herein, sought for declaration and title to the properties in respect of two pieces of lands viz., 0.05 cents and 0.13 cents situated in S.No.418/1 stating that first item of property belonged to the family of the plaintiff ancestrally and in respect of second item of the property, 7 cents originally belonged to one Veerapa Gounder, the plaintiff's father, by way of purchase under a sale deed dated 8.6.45 and the rest of 6 cents belonged to the plaintiff ancestrally. Thus, both the properties have been in enjoyment of the plaintiff's for nearly about 7 or 8 decades. In order to substantiate the same, sufficient documentary evidence were also adduced. The trial court, on trial found that the properties belonged to the plaintiff and also he was in possession of the same. Aggrieved over the same, an appeal was taken by the defendant before the first Appellate Court in A.S.NO.81/2004. The first Appellate Court also affirmed the judgment of the trial court finding that the plaintiff is entitled to the properties and was in possession of the same.
4. The only contention put forth by the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court is that both the courts below have not properly marshaled the evidence. In the instant case, there were revenue proceedings, wherein the patta has been issued in favour of the defendant. But the same has not been taken into consideration by the lower court and the plaintiff has also not been in possession of the properties. Hence, the judgments of the courts below have got to be set aside and necessary question of law has got to be framed by this Court.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and on scrutiny of the materials available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that no question of law, much less, substantial question of law would arise for consideration by this Court.
6. In the instant case, the plaintiff has sought for declaration in respect of two pieces of land, viz., 0.05 cents in the first item and 0.13 cents in the second item. He has substantiated his title to the properties by adducing documentary evidence to show that he has been in possession of the same from the time of his father and subsequently also, the possession was with him. Both the courts below have thoroughly marshaled the evidence both oral and documentary evidence and found that the plaintiff is entitled to the property and has been found in possession under those documents. Under the stated circumstances, the Revenue Department could not have conducted proper enquiry, and without considering the earlier documents, the patta was issued in favour of the defendant. Apart from that, the defendant's possession is also not proved. The defendant has not brought forth documentary evidence to prove his title to or possession of the property.
7. Under the circumstances, both the courts below have recorded concurrent findings as to the question of fact and this Court is unable to find any reason to interfere with the same. This Court is unable to see any question of law, much less, substantial question of law that would arise for consideration in this second appeal. The second appeal requires an order of dismissal. Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed. Consequently, connected CMP.No.12842 of 2005 is closed.
Internet : Yes
1. The Additional Sub Judge, Nagapattinam
2. The District Munsif, Nagapattinam
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.