1. This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 29.6.2009, made in A.S.No.90 of 2005, on the file of the Second Additional Subordinate Court, Villupuram, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 30.3.2005, made in O.S.No.1007 of 1993, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Villupuram.
2. The suit had been filed by the plaintiff Arumuga Kounder, praying for a judgment and decree declaring the plaintiffs title to the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, servants and agents from in any way disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by the plaintiff and for costs. After the death of the plaintiff Arumuga Kounder his legal heir had been added, as the second plaintiff in the suit.
3. It had been submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs that the suit properties had belonged to one Perumal Kounder, Son of Narayana Kounder, who had purchased the properties from one Adhi Narasaiyyar and others of Ulagalampoondi Village. Perumal Kounder had executed a registered settlement deed in favour of the first plaintiff, on 2.9.1976. The said settlement deed had been duly executed, accepted and acted upon by the first plaintiff. Thereafter, the first plaintiff had been in possession and enjoyment of the properties by paying the kist to the Government, regularly. The patta relating to the properties in question had also been transferred in the name of the first plaintiff and subsequently, U.D.R patta had also been issued in his favour.
4. After the third and the fourth plaintiffs had purchased the suit properties from the second plaintiff, on 5.2.1998, by way of a registered sale deed, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Patta had also been transferred in the name of the third and the fourth plaintiffs and they have been paying kist for the suit properties. While so, the defendants were attempting to trespass over the suit properties and to take away the motor pump set and the electrical accessories situated in the suit properties. In such circumstances, the plaintiffs had filed the suit, in O.S.No.1007 of 1993, to declare the title of the third and the fourth plaintiffs, by way of an amended plaint, in the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men, from, in any way, disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by the third and the fourth plaintiffs.
5. In the written statement and in the additional written statement filed on behalf of the second defendant the averments and allegations made by the plaintiffs had been denied. It is stated that the properties belonged to one Perumal Kounder, Son of Narayana Kounder. It has been stated that it is false to state that Perumal Kounder had executed a registered settlement deed, on 2.9.1976, in favour of Arumuga Kounder, since, Perumal Kounder had no issues. It is also false to state that the settlement deed was duly executed, accepted and acted upon. It is also not correct to state that Arumuga Kounder, the original plaintiff in the suit, in O.S.No.1007 of 1993, had taken possession of the suit properties, pursuant to the alleged settlement deed. It has also been stated that the claim of Arumuga Kounder that he has been paying the kist in his name is also false. In fact, the plaintiff had, clandestinely, obtained patta, recently, in the updating scheme, in respect of the suit properties. Till then, the patta stood in the name of Perumal Kounder, the father of the minor first defendant.
6. It had also been stated that the alleged settlement deed, dated 2.9.1976, must be a forged document, since, Perumal Kounder was very sick for nearly three months prior to his death. Arumuga Kounder is the brother-in-law of Perumal Kounder, the father of the minor first defendant through his first wife. After the death of Arumuga Kounders sister, Perumal Kounder had married the mother of the minor first defendant, Avurambal Ammal, as the second wife and the first defendant was born to them out of the lawful wedlock. Therefore, the claim of the plaintiffs that the settlement deed, dated 2.9.1976, had been executed in favour of Arumuga Kounder, since, Perumal Kounder, had no issues, is incorrect. In fact the first defendant, along with his mother Avurambal Ammal, had filed a suit against Arumuga Kounder and six others before the District Munsif Court, Villupuram, in O.S.No.49 of 1984, in respect of certain other items of the properties. In the said suit Arumuga Kounder, had been set exparte. However, since, the suit in O.S.No.49 of 1984 had been dismissed, the first defendant had preferred an appeal to the District Court, Cuddalore, in A.S.No.221 of 1988 and the said appeal had been allowed, declaring the first defendants title to the suit items. Arumuga Kounder had not contested the said suit. In such circumstances, the claim of Arumuga Kounder, that the suit properties belonged to him and his legal heirs, cannot be accepted only on the ground that the patta was in his name.
7. It had also been stated that after the death of Arumuga Kounder the first plaintiff, his legal heirs have also been added, as plaintiffs. In fact at the time of the filing of the suit, the first plaintiff had filed an application, in I.A.No.1900 of 1993, for the grant of temporary injunction and the said application has been dismissed, after due enquiry, on 15.12.1993. Thereafter, the first plaintiff had filed an appeal against the said order, before the Subordinate Court, Villupuram, in C.M.A.No.9 of 1994. The said appeal had been dismissed, on 4.11.1998. During the pendency of the said appeal the second plaintiff had sold a portion of the suit properties to the third and the fourth plaintiffs and as such the alleged sale, dated 6.2.1998, in favour of the plaintiffs 3 and 4, by the second plaintiff, is invalid in the eye of law, as it is adversely affected by the principle of lis pendens, as per Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. While so, the plaintiffs 3 and 4 had filed a suit, in O.S.No.20 of 1999, against the defendants. The said suit had been transferred to the Additional District Court, Villupuram, and retransferred as O.S.No.202 of 1999. The interlocutory application, filed in I.A.No.1201 of 1999, praying for an order of interim injunction had been dismissed, on 18.8.1999. The appeal preferred before the Subordinate Court, Villupuram, in C.M.A.No.19 of 1999, had also been dismissed, on 11.1.2000. Thus, it is clear that the plaintiffs 3 and 4 are not in possession of the suit properties, as claimed by them.
8. Based on the averments made on behalf of the plaintiffs, as well as the defendants, the trial Court had framed certain issues for consideration. However, the issues had been reframed as follows:
1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration, as prayed for in the suit?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for in the suit?
3) Whether the settlement deed, dated 2.9.1976, is true? Whether it would bind the defendants?
4) Whether the settlement deed has been properly written and attested?
5) Whether the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.49 of 1984, would be binding on the plaintiffs?
6) Whether it is correct to state that the plaintiff had got the right over the suit property, by way of adverse possession?
7) Whether the cause of action for the suit is correct?
8) Whether the sale deed made in favour of the plaintiffs 3 and 4, on 6.2.1992, is affected by the principle of lis pendens?
9) Whether the suit is barred by the Principle of res judicata?
10) What other reliefs, the plaintiffs are entitled to?
9. The trial Court had found that the defendants had stated that the settlement deed, marked as Ex.A-1, has to be proved by the plaintiffs. It had also been claimed that the attestors of the settlement deed had not been examined on behalf of the plaintiffs. None of the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiffs had stated that Perumal Kounder had signed the document. It had been noted that Ex.A-1 to A-40 had been marked on behalf of the plaintiffs. The U.D.R. patta has been marked as Ex.A-2 to prove the possession of the suit properties of Arumuga Kounder, the first plaintiff. It was also seen that Exhibits A-3 to A-19 were kist receipts relating to the properties in S.No.45. The said kist receipts were for the year 1978 to 1993. Chitta and adangals relating to the suit properties had also been filed by the plaintiffs, marked as Exs.A-20 and A-21. Exs.A-22 and A-23 are the power of attorney of the first and the second plaintiffs relating to the suit properties. Ex.A-24 is the patta obtained by the plaintiffs 3 and 4 after the suit properties had been purchased by them. However, the defendants had raised the plea that the said documents had been obtained after the filing of the suit. Ex.A-25 to A-27 are the kist receipts in the name of the third and the fourth plaintiffs, in respect of Patta No.557. However, the defendants had stated that the said documents had come into existence after the filing of the suit. Ex.A-31 is the chitta adangal issued in the name of the second plaintiff.
10. It had also been found that Ex.A-32 is the copy of the chitta and adangal issued in the name of the plaintiffs 3 and 4. However, as they had been issued by the Village Administrative Officer, the defendants had objected to the same. Ex.A-33 is the patta issued in the name of Kamalammal, in respect of Patta No.45. Ex.A-34 is the kist receipt, dated 8.3.1999, issued in the name of the plaintiffs, in respect of Patta No.557. The encumbrance certificates had been marked as Ex.A-35. The above exhibits had been marked to show that Ex.A-28 is the document written by Kamalammal in favour of Subba Kounder Devendran.
11. On behalf of the defendants, the printed copy of the judgment of the Subordinate Court, Villupuram, made in O.S.No.49 of 1984, has been marked as Ex.B-1. The certified copy of the order made in A.S.No.221 of 1988, on the file of the District Court, Cuddalore, has been marked as Ex.B-2. The certified copy of the second appeal, made in S.A.No.14 of 1989, on the file of the High Court of Judicature at Madras, had been marked as Ex.B-3. Ex.B-4 is the copy of the order passed in interlocutory application, in I.A.No.1900 of 1993. Ex.B-5 is the affidavit filed by the plaintiffs, in C.M.A.No.6 of 1994. Ex.B-6 is the order of the dismissal passed in C.M.A.No.19 of 1999, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Villupuram. Chitta copies had been marked as Ex.B-7, to show that Perumal Kounders name had been found in the revenue records. The trial Court had found that exhibits A-1, A-36 and A-39 had been written by Dhandapani, based on the oral evidence adduced by P.W.4 and P.W.5. While comparing Exs.A-1 and A-39, the trial Court had found that Perumal Kounder had signed the said documents, as a witness. As such, the trial Court had come to the conclusion that Ex.A-1 is a validly executed document.
12. In view of the findings of the trial Court that Ex.A-1 is a valid document, it had further held that the plaintiffs have been in long and continuous possession of the suit properties, based on the other documents filed on their behalf. However, the trial Court had rejected the claim of the plaintiffs that they have obtained title over the suit properties, by way of adverse possession. In view of the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court that the plaintiffs have valid title in respect of the suit properties, based on Ex.A-1, the trial Court had rejected the claim of the plaintiffs that they have title over the suit properties, by way of adverse possession, based on their claim that they have been in continuous possession of the suit properties, for over 17 years. The trial Court had also found that the properties dealt with in the settlement deed, marked as Ex.A-1 are not the properties which were the subject matter of the suit, in O.S.No.49 of 1984. Therefore, the trial Court had held that the findings in the suit, in O.S.No.49 of 1984, cannot be taken to be binding on the plaintiffs in the present suit and as such, the principle of res judicata cannot be invoked to reject the claims made by the plaintiffs.
13. In view of the findings of the trial Court that Ex.A-1 settlement deed, dated 2.9.1976, is valid in the eye of law, the subsequent purchase of the suit properties, by the third and the fourth plaintiffs, from the second plaintiff, is also valid. As such, the trial Court had held that the transfer of the suit properties cannot be said to be affected by the principle of lis pendens, as per Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The trial Court had also found that the defendants had not marked any document to show that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, at any point of time. In such circumstances, the trial Court had decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs, in O.S.No.1007 of 1993.
14. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, dated 30.3.2005, made in O.S.No.1007 of 1993, the first defendant in the suit had filed an appeal before the II Additional Subordinate Court, Villupuram, in A.S.No.90 of 2005.
15. The First Appellate Court had framed the following points for consideration:
1) Whether the settlement deed, dated 2.9.1976, marked as Ex.A-1 is true and valid?
2) Whether the sale of the suit property in favour of the third and fourth plaintiffs is valid?
3) Whether the suit is affected by the principle of res judicata?
4) Whether the judgment made in O.S.No.49 of 1984 is binding on the respondents in the appeal?
5) Whether the judgment and decree of the trial Court is to be set aside?
6) What other reliefs the parties to the suit are entitled to?
16. The First Appellate Court had confirmed the findings of the trial Court after having found that the properties, which were the subject matter of the suit, in O.S.No.49 of 1984, is different from the properties mentioned in the settlement deed, dated 2.9.1976, marked as Ex.A-1. Further, the First Appellate Court had not accepted the claim of the appellants that Perumal Kounder was very sick and that he would not have been in a position to execute the settlement deed, dated 2.9.1976, in favour of Arumuga Kounder, the first plaintiff in the suit, in O.S.No.1007 of 1993. Since, the document, marked as Ex.A-1, had been found to be valid in the eye of law, the sale of the suit properties by the second plaintiff, namely, Kamalammal, in favour of the third and fourth plaintiffs, was also held to be valid. The First Appellate Court had further held that the evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant were not supporting the claims made on behalf of the defendants in the suit that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. In such circumstances, the First Appellate Court had dismissed the appeal, by its judgment and decree, dated 29.6.2009, made in A.S.No.90 of 2005.
17. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the appellant had filed the present second appeal, raising the following questions, as substantial questions of law: a) Whether the courts below are justified in holding that the evidences of P.W.4 and P.W.5 are sufficient to substitute mandatory procedure of providing a settlement as contemplated under Section 68 and 69 of the evidence Act? b) Whether the present suit for declaration and permanent injunction of the suit properties in favour of the plaintiffs 3 and 4 who are the pendente lite purchasers is maintainable in law in view of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act? c) Whether a decision in O.S.No.49 of 1984 as reversed by the decision in A.S.No.21 of 1988 will not operate as constructive resjudicata for the present suit?
18. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had submitted that the findings of the trial Court, as well as the First Appellate Court, are unsustainable, both in law and on facts. He had submitted that the Courts below ought to have seen that there was no doubt that the suit properties had originally belonged to one Perumal Kounder. The suit had been initially filed by Arumuga Kounder, the brother of Kuppamma, the first wife of Perumal Kounder, praying for the relief of permanent injunction, on the ground that Arumuga Kounder, had taken care of Perumal Kounder during his last days and as there was no legal heir for him, he had executed a settlement deed, in respect of the suit properties and certain other properties, in his favour.
19. He had also submitted that the Courts below ought to have seen that the settlement deed, marked as Ex.A-1 is a forged document and it had not been executed by Perumal Kounder. While he was in a sound and disposing state of mind. The Courts below ought to have seen that, during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff Arumuga Kounder had died and that his wife Kamalammal had been impleaded, as the second plaintiff. Arumuga Kounder had sought for an order of interim injunction by way of an interlocutory application. However, the said application had been dismissed and the civil miscellaneous appeal filed by him against the said order had also been dismissed. Thereafter, the suit had been dismissed for non-prosecution.
20. While so, Kamalammal had sold the suit properties in favour of the third and the fourth plaintiffs. At this stage the suit prayer had been amended, praying for a declaration stating that the plaintiffs 3 and 4 were the owners of the suit properties and that there should be a decree of permanent injunction against the defendants restraining them from interfering with the peaceful possession and occupation of the suit properties by the plaintiffs 3 and 4. The Courts below ought to have seen that the transfer of the suit properties in favour of the third and the fourth plaintiffs is hit by the principle of lis pendens, as they are not bona fide purchasers.
21.The learned counsel for the appellant had also stated that the settlement deed, dated 2.9.1976, marked as Ex.A-1, was not a genuine document, as it had been obtained by Arumuga Kounder the first plaintiff in the suit, in O.S.No.1007 of 1993, by fraud, co-oercion and undue influence. He had also submitted that it was not properly attested, as per the requirements of law. The courts below ought to have found that Avurambal Ammal, the second wife of late Perumal Kounder and Subramani, the appellant in the present second appeal, had filed a suit, in O.S.No.49 of 1984, praying for a declaration to declare that they are the absolute owners of the suit properties and for recovery of possession of the suit properties from the concerned defendants therein. Since, the suit had been dismissed an appeal had been filed by Avurambal Ammal and her son Subramani, in A.S.No.221 of 1988 and the said appeal had been allowed.
22. The second appeal filed before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, in S.A.No.1459 of 1989 had also been dismissed. He had also submitted that the Courts below ought to have seen that as per the mandatory requirements, as contemplated under Sections 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, atleast one of the attesting witnesses should have been examined to prove the settlement deed, when its due execution had been challenged. Admittedly, none of the attesting witnesses had been examined to prove the due execution of the settlement deed, marked as Ex.A-1.
23. In fact, the Courts below had proceeded to arrive at its conclusions presuming that both the attesting witnesses had died. The learned counsel has also submitted that the Courts below ought not to have accepted the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5, as substitutes for the attesting witnesses. Further, Exs.A-36 to A-39 had not been shown as documents in the judgment of the trial Court. Further, Rajendiran, examined as P.W.4, would have been a minor aged about 9 to 11 years at the time of the execution of Exs.A-1 and A-39. However, his evidence had been taken to be true and valid to prove the execution of the documents marked as Exhibits A-1 and A-39. The Courts below had also erred in not properly understanding the scope of Sections 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. He had also stated that the Courts below, had not considered the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 properly. Further, Exs.A-36 and A-39, had not been marked as exhibits. The comparison of the signatures of Perumal Kounder, by the Courts below, is not the contemplated procedure, as per Sections 68 and 69 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Courts below had erred in holding that the properties, which is the subject matter of the settlement deed, dated 2.9.1976, are not the suit properties, in O.S.No.49 of 1984.
24. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the Courts below had arrived at their conclusions, based on the evidence available on record. Both the Courts below had rightly appreciated the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties concerned, as per the relevant provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, contrary to the claims made by the appellant.
25. The learned counsel had further stated that the Courts below had rightly found that the settlement deed, dated 2.9.1976, marked as Ex.A-1, is a valid document. As such, the sale of the suit properties by the second plaintiff, in favour of the third and the fourth plaintiffs, was also valid in the eye of law. Both the Courts below had found that Ex.A-1 is a registered settlement deed, validly executed and acted upon by the parties concerned. The Courts below had rightly appreciated the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5, while arriving at their conclusions. As such, the appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of merits and therefore, it is liable to be dismissed.
26. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the appellant, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the appellant has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant, stating that the findings of the Courts below are perverse and without any basis, cannot be countenanced. Both the Courts below had rightly come to their conclusions, based on the evidence available on record. The Courts below had held that the settlement deed, marked as Ex.A-1, has been validly executed and acted upon by the parties to the settlement deed. Both the Courts below had relied on the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 to arrive at their conclusions.
27. In view of the fact that the Courts below had held that the settlement deed, marked as Ex.A-1, was valid in the eye of law, the subsequent sale of the suit properties, by the second plaintiff, in favour of the third and the fourth plaintiffs, was also valid. Further, the Courts below had found that the properties mentioned in the settlement deed, dated 2.9.1976, are not the properties which were the subject matter of the suit, in O.S.No.49 of 1984, and therefore, the claim of the appellant that the suit, in O.S.No.1007 of 1993, filed by the first plaintiff is hit by the principle of res judicata, cannot be accepted. Further, the Courts below had rightly held that the principle of lis pendens would not be applicable to the present case. As such, the present second appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of merits. Hence, it stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.