The respondent instituted a suit before the Munsiff Court, Tiruchengode registered as OS No.200/2011 claiming relief of declaration that the sale deed dated 10.02.2011 executed by the first defendant in favour of second defendant was null and void and to declare that suit property belonged to the plaintiffs and further for relief of an injunction against the defendants. (Para 3.1)
Tiruchengodu, vide judgment dated 27.11.2020, after considering the evidence on record, approved the findings recorded by the Trial Court and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal. Once again specific findings were recorded that the oral partition had not been proved by the plaintiffs. For the said purpose, both the Courts below had relied upon the evidence led by the parties, both oral and documentary. (Para 8)
The two sale deeds relate to different properties and not to survey number in question. Whether any partition with respect to the survey number in question had taken place or not, is not borne out from the record. The suit property was never recorded in the name of the plaintiffs or for that matter, husband of plaintiff no.1, at any time. The will which was the basis of the claim of the plaintiff, had not been found to be proved in accordance to law. The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court had dealt with the documents Exh.A-4 and B-3, the two sale deeds, and found that these were not sufficient to prove the oral partition or in any manner establish the oral partition with respect to the survey number in question. (Para 12)
Interestingly although the plaintiffs set up a case that the land in suit was coming from Avinashi Gounder but on record, two pattas were filed which establish that the survey number in question had been allotted in the name of plaintiff no.1 and eight others jointly with respect to which there was no partition. This fact had been admitted by the plaintiffs in their deposition. All these aspects had been considered by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court but the High Court failed to consider the oral as also the documentary evidence. Only on the basis of the two sale deeds and one mortgage deed, which relate to different piece and parcels of land, the High Court recorded a perverse finding that oral partition had taken place. It also did not deal with the other findings recorded by the Courts below. (Para 13)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2024 STPL(Web) 8 SC
[2024 INSC 12]
Rajendhiran Vs. Muthaiammal @ Muthayee & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 37 of 2024 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.15541 of 2023)-Decided on 03-01-2024.
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/2024-STPLWeb-8-SC.pdf
