The above Second Appeal arises against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.6 of 2013, on the file of the Principal District Court, Thanjavur reversing the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.14 of 2010, on the file of Principal Subordinate Court, Thanajvur.
2. The plaintiff is the appellant and the respondent is the defendant in the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.14 of 2010 for declaration and permanent injunction. The brief case of the plaintiff is as follows:
(i). According to the plaintiff, the suit property situated in S.No.168/3 at Nanjikottai Village in Thanjavur Taluk measuirng an extent of 75 cents. The plaintiff purchased an extent of 54 2/3 cents out of 75 cents from one Muthu Nadar @ Muthusamy for a valuable consideration under a registered sale deed dated 29.12.1983. After the demise of Muthu Nadar, his legal heirs viz., his wife and as the guardian of her minor children Selvam, Shanmugavel, Vijayashnkar, Chinnaponnu and Vasuki and the brother of Muthur Nadar viz., Subbaiah Nadar, his son Anbazhagan for himself and as the guardian of his minor children Periyasamy and Prabaharan sold the remaining 20 1/3 cents in favour of the plaintiff by means of a registered sale deed dated 28.01.1987. In these circumstances, the plaintiff is entitled to the suit property.
(ii) Since the suit property was an ancestral property of Muthu Nadar, no title deed was available, but patta was standing in the name of Muthur Nadar in Patta No.4027. Even though, she had applied for change of patta, the name was included as joint pattadar in Patta No.4027 by a proceeding of Headquarters Deputy Tahsildar, dated 10.09.1987. The patta transfer was made in respect of 54 2/3 cents. When she had applied for change of patta for remaining lands, the Tahsildar of Thanjavur, by order dated 14.07.1992 has stated that since the plaintiff had purchased the entire extent of land, there was no necessity to subdivide the same. According to the plaintiff, she has been in possession and enjoyment of the property for more than 23 years. Subsequently, she came to know that the defendant had created the documents of sale deeds dated 24.12.2008 and 26.11.2009. According to the plaintiff, those documents are not true and not binding on her. In these circumstances, the plaintiff filed the suit.
3. The brief case of the defendant is as follows:
According to the defendant, the extent of the land in S.No.168/3 is only 74 cents and not 75 cents. The suit property is not the ancestral property of Muthu Nadar. The alleged purchase made by the plaintiff under two sale deeds are not true. According to the defendant, the property was originally belonged to one Raman Nadar, S/o Rengasamy Nadar and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same till its disposal. The said Raman Nadar executed a power of attorney dated 24.11.1984 in favour of one Rajagopal S/o Rengasamy and he had given the power only in respect of 70 cents out of 74 cents and he had retained 4 cents situated on the north western side. Thereafter, the power agent sold 25 1/2 cents out of 70 cents situated on the western side of the southern side to one Ramasamy, S/o Natesan through a registered sale deed dated 29.08.1985. The defendant purchased the said extent from Ramasamy through a registered sale deed dated 24.12.2008 for a valuable consideration. The remaining portion of 44 1/2 cents were sold by the power agent to some third parties on behalf of the said Raman Nadar. The defendant had purchased some plots from the third parties. In this way, the defendant was in possession of Plot Nos.4, 5 and 6 and subsequently he had sold two of the said plots to some third parties. The Government had acquired plot No.6 for the purpose of forming National Highway road and thereafter the defendant had applied for compensation and after verifying the title, the compensation was given to the defendant. The name of the defendant was entered as joint pattadar in respect of 25 + cents and he has been regularly paying kist. Again the Government had acquired on the eastern side portion of the said 25 + cents and the defendant was given compensation by the authorities. The defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The plaintiff has no right. In these circumstances, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.
4. Before the trial Court on the side of the plaintiff, he was examined as P.W.1 and 30 documents viz., Exs.A.1 to A.30 were marked and on the side of the defendant, two witnesses were examined and 21 documents viz., Exs.B.1 to B.21 were marked. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidences let in by the parties, decreed the suit. Aggrieved over the same, the defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.6 of 2013 and the lower Appellate Court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court, the plaintiff has filed the above Second Appeal.
5. At the time of admission of the Second Appeal, the following Substantial Questions of Law arose for consideration:
(1) Whether the lower Appellate Court failed to consider EX A-24/ settlement Register of the year 1962 and arrived at a perverse finding that the appellant plaintiff has not proved his title to the suit property?
(2) Whether the lower Appellate Court has not committed an error in law without considering the correctness or otherwise of the finding of the trial court holding the plaintiff to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit property?
(3) Whether the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate court reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court without considering the fact that the defendant and his predecessors in title did not take steps to include their names as owners in the revenue records from 1983 to 2008 has resulted in the miscarriage justice?
6. On a careful consideration of the materials available on record and the submissions made by the learned Counsel appearing on either side, it could be seen that the plaintiff had contended that originally the suit property measuring an extent of 75 cents comprised in S.No.168/3 belonged to one Muthu Nadar @ Muthusamy and the plaintiff had purchased 54 2/3 cents out of 75 cents under Ex.A.1 sale deed dated 29.12.1983 and after the demise of the said Muthu Nadar, remaining 20 1/3 cents were purchased from the legal heirs of Muthu Nadar under Ex.A.2 sale deed, dated 28.01.1987. It is pertinent to note that the alias name of Muthu Nadar has been mentioned only in the plaint for the first time. In none of the other documents, the alias name of the plaintiff has been mentioned. When the documents do not mention about the alias name, the mentioning of alias name of Muthu Nadar by the plaintiff is only to circumvent the entries made in the documents.
7. Under Ex.A.1 sale deed dated 29.12.1983, the plaintiff purchased the property measuring an extent of 54 2/3 cents out of 74 cents from one Muthu Nadar S/o Udayar Nadar. In Ex.A.2, sale deed dated 28.01.1987 i.e., the sale deed executed by the legal heirs of Muthusamy, it has been mentioned that Rajamani W/o Late Muthusamy. The sale deed was executed by the children of Muthusamy and Rajamani. In Ex.A.22 kist receipt, the patta number has been mentioned as 5009. When the plaintiff claimed that the patta in respect of her property is 4027, the plaintiff had produced Ex.A.22 document pertaining to patta No.5009. In the copy of ?A? register extract marked as Ex.A.24, it has been mentioned in Column No.11 that the land belonged to Muthu Nadar and P.Subbiah Nadar.
8. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that Muthu Nadar and P.Subbiah Nadar are brothers. The contention of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted for the reason that in Ex.A.2 sale deed, Muthu Nadar's father's name has been mentioned as Udayar Nadar. That being the case, mentioning ?P? as initial for Subbiah Nadar would falsify the case of the plaintiff. In Ex.A.27, land acquisition proceedings, Muthu Nadar's father's name has been mentioned as Ramalinga Nadar. When Muthu Nadar has not been properly identified by mentioning the correct name of his father, the documents produced by the plaintiff are liable to be rejected. The conduct of the plaintiff would clearly establish that she tried to mislead the Courts below by producing the said documents.
9. On the other hand, the defendant established his title by Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.7 sale deeds. The National High Way Authorities have also acquired a portion of the land and after thorough enquiry, awarded compensation to the defendant. Though the award amount was paid to the defendant, the plaintiff has not taken any steps to claim the compensation from the Authorities. When the plaintiff has not questioned the acquisition proceedings or she has raised any objection for paying the compensation, that itself would establish that the plaintiff is not serious about the acquired lands or getting compensation for the acquired lands. The documents produced by the plaintiff do not support her case in any manner whatsoever. The defendant has proved his case by adducing oral and documentary evidences. The lower Appellate Court, taking into consideration of all these aspects rightly dismissed the suit.
10. In these circumstances, I do not find any ground much less any substantial question of law to interfere with the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court. The Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed.
To
1. The Principal District Court, Thanjavur.
2. The Principal Subordinate Court, Thanjavur.
.