MADRAS HIGH COURT
T. JAYASINGH ... 11TH ... VS Y. RAJAMANY (DIED) ON
13 SEPTEMBER, 2017
13 SEPTEMBER, 2017
Summarised Judgement (Scroll for Complete Judgement)
Introduction:
Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 12.10.2000 and made in A.S.No.64 of 2000 on the file of the sub-Court,Padmanabhapuram, reversing the judgment and decree dated 16.06.2000 and made in O.S.No.46 of 1985 on the file of Addl. District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram.
Facts of the Case:
The brief facts leading to filing of the above Second Appeal are as follows:-
The suit property Item No.I to IV are originally belonged to one Yesuvadiyan who was married to Bakiyamuthu Natachi and they have no issues on the death of the Yesuvadiyan as per Section 17 &18 Travancore Christian Succession Act, the property devolves upon the brother of the deceased Yesuvadiyan namely Aasirvadham and Yesudasan. On the death of the Aasirvadham, it devolved upon the four of his sons namely, first defendant A.Sellaiyah, second defendant A.Balayan, third defendant A.Thomas and Yovan.
Since, Yovan as deceased his three sons are added as party defendants viz., the fourth defendant Nelson and 5th defendant Thangappan and 6th defendant Thangam are jointly entitled for half share on the death of the Yesudasan. The plaintiff Rajamani being the only son of Yesudasan is entitled to half share of his father and accordingly, filed the suit in O.S.No.46 of 1985 for partition before the District Munsiff Court, Padmanabhapuram.
The plaint proceeds on the basis that the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 5 who are the legal heirs of the above said Aasirvadham and Yesudasan who are brothers of the original owner Yesuvadiyan are in joint and possession of the property and defendants 7 to 10 has no right or title in the suit property.
The plaint further proceeds that after the death of Yesuvadiyan, his widow Bakiyamuthu Natachi was residing in Tiruvendram and from whom one Manas claimed to have obtained to sale deed during on 6.4.1115 M.E (Malayalam era+825=English calender) in other words around the year 1940.
Observation & Judgement of Court:
Based upon the report of the advocate commissioner,the lower appellate court have came to the categorical finding that the defendant have not proved the plea of possession adverse to that of the owners namely, the plaintiff and the defendant 1 to 5 and accordingly, negatived the plea of adverse possession and decreed the suit is well merited and well considered and the same cannot be interfered with and accordingly, the substantial question II&III are held against the appellant herein.
The upshot of the above discussion demonstrates that the Judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court is well merited and well considered and all the substantial question of law are held in favour of the R17 (and L.R of the plaintiff) and this Second Appeal is devoid of merits liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the Appeal is dismissed with costs.
----------------------------------------------------
Complete Judgement
MADRAS HIGH COURT
T.JAYASINGH ... 11TH ... VS Y.RAJAMANY (DIED) ON 13 SEPTEMBER, 2017
T.Jayasingh ... 11Th ... vs Y.Rajamany (Died) on 13 September, 2017
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.09.2017
RESERVED ON : 30.06.2017
PRONOUNCED ON : 13.09.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
S.A.(MD) No.1754 of 2001
T.Jayasingh ... 11th Defendant/7th respondent/appellant
-vs-
1.Y.Rajamany (Died)
2.A.Thomas
3.Y.Nelson
4.Y.Thangappan
5.Y.Thangam
6.M.Wilson
7.C.Vincent
8.Kuleri@Chinnamma
9.C.Robin
10.C.Vincent
11.C.Pal Wilson
12.C.Denson
13.C.Rajan
14.Gnanammal(Deceased)
15.R.Gnanadhas(died)
16.R.Yesudhas
17.R.Paulraj
18.R.Florane Nesabai
19.R.Suseelabai
20.R.Sathivimala
(R14 to R20 are brought on records
as LRs of the deceased R1 vide order
made in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 in S.A.No.1754 of 2001
21.Mercy Kamalabai
22.Shyam Sobitharaj
23.Shyam Edwinraj
(R21 to R23 brought as LRs of deceased 15th
respondent vide Court order dated 15.3.16 made in
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2016 in S.A.No.1754 of 2001
by RMDJ) ... Respondents
PRAYER: Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree dated 12.10.2000 and made in A.S.No.64 of 2000 on the file of the sub-Court,Padmanabhapuram, reversing the judgment and decree dated 16.06.2000 and made in O.S.No.46 of 1985 on the file of Addl.District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram.
For Appellant : Mr.K.P.Narayanakumar
For R1 : died
For R2 to R23 : Exparte
For R14 : Died
For R15 : Died
For R17 : Mr.K.N.Thambi
For R16,18 to 23 : No appearance
JUDGMENT
The 11th defendant in the suit is the appellant herein and the 17th Respondent herein is the legal heir of the deceased plaintiff.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of the above Second Appeal are as follows:-
The suit property Item No.I to IV are originally belonged to one Yesuvadiyan who was married to Bakiyamuthu Natachi and they have no issues on the death of the Yesuvadiyan as per Section 17 &18 Travancore Christian Succession Act, the property devolves upon the brother of the deceased Yesuvadiyan namely Aasirvadham and Yesudasan. On the death of the Aasirvadham, it devolved upon the four of his sons namely, first defendant A.Sellaiyah, second defendant A.Balayan, third defendant A.Thomas and Yovan. Since, Yovan as deceased his three sons are added as party defendants viz., the fourth defendant Nelson and 5th defendant Thangappan and 6th defendant Thangam are jointly entitled for half share on the death of the Yesudasan. The plaintiff Rajamani being the only son of Yesudasan is entitled to half share of his father and accordingly, filed the suit in O.S.No.46 of 1985 for partition before the District Munsiff Court, Padmanabhapuram.
3. The plaint proceeds on the basis that the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 5 who are the legal heirs of the above said Aasirvadham and Yesudasan who are brothers of the original owner Yesuvadiyan are in joint and possession of the property and defendants 7 to 10 has no right or title in the suit property. The plaint further proceeds that after the death of Yesuvadiyan, his widow Bakiyamuthu Natachi was residing in Tiruvendram and from whom one Manas claimed to have obtained to sale deed during on 6.4.1115 M.E (Malayalam era+825=English calender) in other words around the year 1940.
4. The said Bakiyamuthu Natachi being the widow of the land owner Yesuvadiyan alleged to have executed a sale deed in favour of Manas. The 7th defendant and his son 8th defendant have obtained title and pending suit after death of 7th defendant, the 8th defendant have sold the Item No.III portion and Item IV of the property in favour of the 11th defendant who in turn said to have sold eastern side of the property to 15th and 16th defendant in the suit half plot each and claims title in respect of western portion of the property. Since, the Bakiyamuth Natachi is not the owner of the land if at all having entitled to only life estate and hence, the claim of the legal heirs of the Manas. Thereafter, 11th defendant who purchased a property pendente-lite and thereafter, 15the defendant and 16th defendant who claims through 11th defendant, are arrays as parties to the legal heirs.
5. Initially, defendants 1 to 3 filed a written statement alleging that Item No.1&2 of the property is not available for partition. Since, Item No.1 of the property is already given to Kattudurai High School and Item No.II of the property is already been settled and gifted by the Yesuvadiyan to the Church during his lifetime and therefore, Item No.I&II of the property are not available for partition in respect of Item No.III & IV, they are entitled for half share in the property being legal heirs of the Aasirvadham, one of the brother of the deceased Yesuvadiyan as per Travancore Christian Succession Act.
6. The defendants 7 & 8 who are the legal heirs of the Manas, the purchaser from the Bakiyamuthu Natachi contended that the said Manas have purchased the Item No.III & IV of the suit property during 6.4.1115 M.E (Malayalam Era) and the 9th defendant has filed written statement claiming that Item No.II of the property is already been settled by way of gift deed and in the additional written statement filed by the 11th defendant who is the subsequent purchaser during the pendency of the suit in the year 1996, from the legal heirs of the Manas who has purchased a property from Bakiyamuthu Natachi have contended that in respect of suit properties provision of the Indian Succession Sessions Act alone is applicable. As such, on the death of the Yesuvadiyan, his wife Bakiyamuthu Natachi alone is entitled to succeed the property who in turn have sold Item No.III&IV of the property to the Manas and on after his death of Manas, from the legal representatives of the Manas, the 11th defendant purchased a suit property pendente-lite. Further, during pendency of the suit, he also effected the further sale in favour of the defendants 15 and 16 on the eastern side of the property.
7.In that additional written statement, 11th defendant also stated that Indian Succession Session Act alone is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. a) For the additional written statement of the 11th defendant, reply statement was filed by the plaintiff alleging that Item No.I&II of the property may be deleted from the suit and the contest be confine to Item No.III&IV of the suit property alone. Thereafter, on the death of the first defendant his legal heirs defendants 12,13,15,16 were brought on record. There are also filed adoption written statement.
b) Thus, after written statement and additional written statement by some of the defendants, the plaintiff has chosen to file reply statement, by this time some of the defendants died and hence legal heirs are brought on record when they have filed additional written statement and the plaintiff filed reply as narrated above.
9. In short, the case of the plaintiff is that, one yesuvadiyan was the original owner of the Item No.III&IV of the suit property (after Item No.I&II are given up in the re-joinder) and on the death of the Yesuvadiyan, since they are Christian of Kanniyakumari District, and the relevant date, it was part of Travancore and hence, the Travancore Act is applicable since it is a part B state under the Constitution of India and as per Section 17&18 of the Travancore Christian Act, the Yesuvadiyan who died issueless and his property has to devolve upon his brothers namely Aasirvadham and Vincent and the only son of the Yesudasan namely Rajamani, the plaintiff have claimed a half share and while, the other branch of Aasirvadham claimed another half share. Whereas, the D11 who claims right to title for having purchased the property from Manas who said to have purchased the property from Bakiyamuthu Natachi,W/o.Late Yesuvadiyan (Bakiyamuthu Natachi died in the year 1974). Therefore, on the strength of the sale deed executed by Bakiyamuthu Natachi, D11,D15&D16 claims title over the property besides also raised plea of adverse possession.
10.During the trial, on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff, the first plaintiff Rajamani was examined as P.W.1 and neighbouring tea shop owner as examined as P.W.2 and Exhibit A1 to A11 were marked which are all property tax receipts and Exhibit A5 is the house tax receipts of the year 1984 (prior to filing of the suit) and on behalf of the defendant Jaisingh, Wilson and yasin were examined as D.W.1 to D.W.3 and Exhibits B1 to B26 were marked.
11.On consideration of both oral and documentary evidence, the learned District Munsif came to the conclusion that on the facts and circumstances of the case and Yesuvadiyan and Bakiyamuthu Natachi lived in Kanniyakumari District and died without issues and hence as per Travancore Christian Succession Act, only the brother of the Yesuvadiyan are entitled to succeed the suit property and the Bakiyamuthu Natachi who is only entitled for a life interest without power of alienation cannot effect any transfer of property. However, further held that the 11th defendant who had purchased a suit property during the pendency of the case have proved his plea of adverse possession and dismissed the suit.
12.As against the finding by the trial Court that Travancore Christian Succession Act is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, no appeal has been filed by the defendant and no arguments have been advanced on that course and hence the Lower Appellate Court on re-appreciation of evidence has held that considerable only the plea of adverse possession raised by the second subsequent purchaser namely D11 (who had purchased a property in the year 1976) has perfected his title by adverse possession or not has been discussed.
13.The lower Appellate Court has taken note of the factum of the payment of house tax by the plaintiff and also the building put up by the plaintiff and relied upon the report of the Advocate Commissioner and Exhibit A5 house tax receipts before filing of suit, held that the plaintiff and the D1 wherein joint possession in the suit property and the relied upon the Exhibit A1 to A12 and the Advocate Commissioner's Report have negatived the plea of the adverse possession. On the ground that the 11th defendant is a second subsequent purchaser from the Manas and having purchased a property in the year 1996 namely Pendente-lite (suit filed in the year 1985) on that score negatived the plea of adverse possession and set aside the finding given by the plaintiff and accordingly, decreed the suit as prayed.
14.Aggrieved against the said judgment D11,Jeyasingh alone has preferred this appeal.
15. The above Second Appeal at a time of admission, the following substantial questions of law were framed:-
a) When possession of Manas, the purchaser from Packiamuthu Nadthi from 1115 ME(1940) is admitted, is the learned Sub Judge right in reversing the defence on the basis of a solitary tax receipt Ex.A5?
b) When the documents produced by the 11th defendant clearly establish possession as real owner for over 4 decades still is the learned Subordinate Judge right in holding that the 11th defendant has not prescribed title by adverse possession?
c) When the title of the plaintiff had been lost by long continuous adverse possession even prior to 1984 is the learned subordinate Judge right in granting a decree?
and during the arguments considering the submissions made by the rival parties, the additional substantial question of law is also framed namely Whether the Travancore Christian Succession Act or Indian Succession Act will applicable on the facts and circumstances of the case?
16.It is to be stated that pending Second Appeal before this Court, the 14th respondent Gnammal died on 4.5.2015 and her legal representatives were already arrayed as respondent 15 to respondent 20 and hence, memo has been filed on behalf of the appellant and the same has been ordered to be recorded on 05.01.2017 and cause title were also amended accordingly.
17.Admittedly, the suit property Item No.I&II have been given up by the plaintiff before the trial Court. The suit claim was confined in respect of Item No.III&IV of the suit property alone. The property was standing in the name of the one Yesuadiyan who was said to have died in the year 1115 ME(1940) leaving behind his wife Bakiyamuthu Natachi who died in the year 1974.
18.According to the contesting defendant during Malayalam Era 1115 i.e (1115+825=1940 English calendar), the Bakiyamuthu Natachi said to have executed a sale deed in favour of Manas whose legal heirs are D7&D8 and further when the suit was pending before the trial Court during pendente-lite in the year 1996, the appellant (11th defendant) seems to have purchased the property on 1.7.1996 from the son of the said Manas under Ex.B1. It remains to be stated that the original sale deed alleged to have executed by the Bakiyamuthu Natachi in favour of the Manas in 1115 ME (1940) was not produced before the Court and only a type Malayalam copy was produced along with Tamil translation as Exhibit B2 and B3 assumes significance. The entire case of the sole appellant, the 11th defendant is based upon the alleged sale deed said to have been executed by Bakiyamuthu Natachi under Exhibit B2 viz., sale deed of the year 1940 in favour of Manas was not at all produced before the Court and during the cross examination of the D.W.1, he has expressed his inability to produce the original sale deed.
19.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in AIR 1986 Supreme Court 1011(Mrs.Mary Roy etc., Vs.State of Kerala and others) has held that:- ?We are, therefore, of the view that on the coming into force of Part-B States (Laws) Act,1951 the Travancore Christian Succession Act,1092 stood repealed and Chapter II of Part V of the Indian Succession Act,1925 became applicable and intestate succession to the property of members of the Indian Christian Community in the territories of the erstwhile State of Travancore was thereafter governed by Chapter II of Part V of the Indian Succession Act,1925?.
Thus, the Supreme Court decision is to the effect that after coming into the force of the Indian Succession Act 1925 , the provisions of the Travancore Christian Regulation Act were superseded from the date of the part - B states (Laws) Act, 1951 viz on and from 22.02.1951 only.
20.In the decision reported in 1998 (II) CTC 455, (J.Ramayyan Vs.J.Palayyan and 4 others) has hed that wherein:-
?Effect and applicability of Travancore Christian Succession Regulation Act,after passing Indian Succession Act was considered and this Court has held that on Indian Succession Act coming into force provisions of Travancore Christians Succession Act was superseded and Date of death of the land owner is crucial date to determine applicability of Travancore Christians Succession Act to Christian of Kanyakumari district after Indian Succession Act came into force".
21.In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mrs.Mary Roy's case (as cited supra), the Indian Succession Act is made applicable to the Kanniyakumari District which is erstwhile part of the Travancore cochin is only from the year 1951 and as per the decision of this Court in Ramaya's case cited second supra, date of death of the owner is relevant to determine the applicability of the Act.
22.Accordingly, in view of the undisputed legal proposition as narrated above and on the factual position, in the instant case being that the original owner Yesuvadiyan having died in the year 1111ME+825=1936 on which date only Travancore Christian Succession Act is applicable. By operation of the provision Section 17 of the said Act, the widow of the Bakiyamuthu Natachi is only entitled for a life interest in the suit property, without power of alienation and accordingly the Manas and the subsequent purchasers namely the 11the defendant/appellant cannot claim any right or title over the property, on the basis of the alleged Exhibit B2, sale deed, since Bakiyamuthu Natachi, herself has no right of alienation and further after death of Bakiyamuthu Natachi only the brothers of the Yesuadiyan namely Aasirvadham and Yesudasan whose legal heir are the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 are alone entitled to the suit property and hence, this Court is of the considered view that on the facts and circumstances of the case Trivancore Christian Succession Act is applicable since on the relevant date being the date of the death of the Yesuadiyan and accordingly, this substantial question of law is held in favour of the 17th respondent (LR of the plaintiff) and the same is answered accordingly.
23.Substantial question of Law 1,2:-
The appellant claims on the strength of the sale deed said to have been executed by the son of Manas (who claimed to have purchased from the Bakiyamuthu Natachi, the widow of the Yesuadiyan). The suit is filed in the year 1985 and the fact that the appellant/11th defendant purchased property pending suit is not in dispute. He having purchased a property pendente-lite cannot claim adverse possession, simultaneously, claim plea of ownership based upon the sale deed of the year 1940 in favour of Manas.
24.The lower Appellate Court relied upon documentary evidence Exhibit A5, a house tax receipt filed by the plaintiff/respondent to hold that he is in possession of the property is found to be legally sustainable and in the decision reported in 2007 (14) Supreme Court Cases 308 (Annakili Vs.A.Vedanayagam and others) wherein the Apex Court has held that for the plea of adverse possession.
?Possession must by hostile and ?Animus Possidendi? is a requisite ingredient of adverse possession. Further, along with the possession, it is also necessary that the animus possidendi must be existing at the commencement of the possession and mere possession for a period of more than 12 years itself does not ripen into a title in the absence of animus possidendi. and further in the decision reported in 2009 13 SCC 229 (L.N.Aswathama and another Vs.P.Prakash) has held that:-
?While ...the requirements of a acquisition of title by prescription, have reiterated, long and continuous possession by itself would not amount to adverse possession if it was either permissive or without animus possidendi - To establish claim of title by prescription, possession of the claimant must be physical/actual, exclusive, open, uninterrupted, notorious and hostile to the true owner for a period exceeding twelve years and further held that Held, pleas based on title (when title is claimed through the plaintiff owner) and adverse possession are mutually inconsistent - Adverse possession does not begin to operate until such title over disputed property is renounced by defendant - Unless claimant possessing the property has requisite animus to possess the property hostile to the title of the true owner, period for prescription will not commence - However, plea of title claimed through another person (other than plaintiff owner) would not be mutually inconsistent with plea of adverse possession against said plaintiff owner?.
25.In the decision reported in 2011(3)law weekly 789 (K.Gopalan (died) & others Vs.Muthulakshmi) has held that:-
Long possession will not become adverse possession and a duty is cast upon the person, who claims adverse possession to prove that his possession became adverse to the knowledge of the true owner and person was enjoying the property with the knowledge that he was not the owner and others were the owners and he was enjoying the property to the knowledge of such other person and when the defendant claimed title to the suit property, she cannot claim adverse possession to the suit property.?.
26.The Lower Appellate Court have discussed in detail regarding the relevant evidenciary value of Exhibit A1 and Exhibit A12 and also note of the Exhibit B18 and B19 and B20 have given a category finding that from 1973, both the plaintiff and the first defendant wherein joint possession in suit property as on 1973. While Exhibit A2 to A15 were relating to the suit property Item No.III are house tax receipts paid by the plaintiff. So also, Exhibit A6 and A7 have held that in view of the existence of Exhibit A1,A2,A3,A4 and A5 upto the year 1973. The house tax receipts are standing a portion in the name of the first plaintiff and the first defendant and not in the name of the Manas who is said to have obtained a sale deed in the year 1970 and therefore, came to the conclusion, basing upon the above documentary evidence, the house tax receipts have been levied on the plaintiff and the first defendant upto the year 1973 and drawn the correct conclusion that the Manas have not been in possession of the suit property through whom the appellant claimed title to the suit.
27. D11,D15 and D16 claims title who have admittedly purchased the property during pendentite while the suit was filed in the year 1985. The lower Appellate Court rendered a correct conclusion that till year 1973 (.e., 12 years prior to the filing of the suit) the house tax receipts only go to the show that plaintiff and the family members of the first defendant were paying the house tax receipts and there is no indication of Manas having purchased the property and having been in possession of the property 12 years prior to the filing of the suit and such a finding of lower Appellate Court is well found and well merited does not warrant any interference by this Court and hence, the first substantial question of law is answered in negative against the appellant herein.
28. Substantial Question of Law II&III:-
As stated supra before the trial Court, the original sale deed alleged to have been executed by the Bakiyamuthu Nattachi was not filed and only the type version in Malayalam is filed as Exhibit B2. Before the lower Appellate Court, the Commissioner's report C1 and C2 has marked. While, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1, the neigbouring tea stall owner was examined P.W.2 deposed regarding possession of the plaintiff on the one portion of the suit property.
29. To substantiate the defendant claimed the 11th defendant (Jaisingh) examined himself as D.W.1 and while, the 8th defendant M.Vilson,S/o.Manas is examined as D.W.2. While, the 9th defendant Vincent S/o.first defendant examined as D.W.3. It remains to be stated that during the lifetime of the first defendant A.Chellaih he had filed the written statement which was adopted by the other 3 defendants goes to show that after death of the original owner Yesuadiayan the plaintiff has constructed in a shop on the western side having door No.7/26B and he was in possession and enjoyment of the property. While so, after the death of the first defendant,the 9th defendant who is son of the said first defendant chellaih was brought on record who examined himself as D.W.3 as deposed diametrically opposite to the version of the first defendant in the written statement as if there was no shop before the sale in favour of the D.11 goes to show that D.W.3 has been won over by the contesting defendant and hence, the oral evidence of D.W.3 cannot be accepted and same lack credibility and a similar finding arrived at by the lower Appellate Court is well considered and the same is hereby confirmed.
30. Yet another point that is to be considered at this juncture is that, after filing of the suit and before D.W.1 entering the witness box, an advocate commissioner was appointed and his report has been filed in the Court for which the appellant/defendant has been filed any objections wherein it is categorically stated that on the western side of the suit property, there was an old building and both the parties have stated that the building in the property that lies on the western side has been demolished by the defendant and from the report of the advocate commissioner Ex. C.1 have clearly stated that the property has been divided on east and west. In the eastern side, 2 shops having the door No.7/26C and 7/26C1 and on the western side, the building has door No.7/26B and both building and door are in damaged conditions and damaged caused to them could have been within the 10 days before the date of inspection and he has assessed the age of the building having the door No.7/26C as about 40 years and based upon the advocate commissioner's report (which has been prepared based upon the inspection by the advocate commissioner before D.W.1 entering the witness box) falsifies the case of the appellant/defendant. Therefore, the oral evidence of the D.W.1 to D.W.3 that till the property was purchased by the defendants 15&16 from the defendant 11, there was no construction in the site has no legs to stand and the lower Appellate Court has properly analysed the evidence of the D.W.1 to D.W.3 on the basis of the commissioner report C1 and C2 and therefore, the lower Appellate Court has rightly relied upon the advocate Commissioner's report and sketch Ex.C1 and Ex.C2 and rejected the version of the D.W.2 and D.W.3 on right score and thereby held that the plea of adverse possession claimed by the defendant is not substantiated in respect of 12 years prior to the filing of the suit (namely 1973 since the suit has been filed in the year 1985) is well considered and well merited, does not warrant any interference by this Court.
31. Based upon the report of the advocate commissioner,the lower appellate court have came to the categorical finding that the defendant have not proved the plea of possession adverse to that of the owners namely, the plaintiff and the defendant 1 to 5 and accordingly, negatived the plea of adverse possession and decreed the suit is well merited and well considered and the same cannot be interfered with and accordingly, the substantial question II&III are held against the appellant herein.
32. The upshot of the above discussion demonstrates that the Judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court is well merited and well considered and all the substantial question of law are held in favour of the R17 (and L.R of the plaintiff) and this Second Appeal is devoid of merits liable to be dismissed.
33. In the result,
i) this Second Appeal is dismissed with costs
ii) the Judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court in A.S.No.64 of 2000, dated 12.10.2000 on the file of the sub-Court, Padmanabhapuram, reversing the Judgment and decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.46 of 1985, dated 16.06.2000, on the file of Additional District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram is hereby confirmed.
To
1.The sub-Court,Padmanabhapuram
2.The Addl.District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram.
------------------------------------------------------------------
ABHISHEK 03012020
No comments:
Post a Comment