Decreeing the suit with regard to the title and possession of the entire suit property and confined the plaintiff’s (appellant herein), entitlement to title and possession to 96 cents purchased under Ext. A5 sale deed. (Para 1)
The subject suit was filed seeking declaration that the entire suit property belonged to the plaintiff and for a consequential prayer for permanent injunction against the defendants. (Para 1)
We will consider whether the High Court was legally correct in holding that owing to the nonproduction of any document by the plaintiff (the appellant) evincing as to how the sons of Vellaiya Thevar obtained the suit property in a partition Exhibit A1, being a registration copy (secondary evidence), could not be admitted in evidence as proof of the contents of its original. (Para 19)
When once Ext.A1 is found as genuine and as one legally admissible for the purpose of proving the contents of the original sale deed No.1209/1928 of SRO, Andipatti and one transferring the title to the extent covered thereunder to Puliyankaladi who is the vendor of the appellant/plaintiff, in the absence of any proven document conferring a better title to the respondent/defendant, as held by the courts below, there was no reason to reverse the concurrent findings of the courts below. (Para 33)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2023 STPL(Web) 273 SC
[2023 INSC 835]
Appaiya Vs. Andimuthu@ Thangapandi & Ors.
Civil Appeal No. 14630 of 2015(@ SLP (C) No.10013 of 2015)-Decided on 20-09-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/2023-STPLWeb-273-SC.pdf
