The plaintiff, who was not in possession, had
in the suit claimed only declaratory relief along
with mandatory injunction. Plaintiff being out of
possession, the relief of recovery of possession
was a further relief which ought to have been
claimed by the plaintiff. The suit filed by the
plaintiff for a mere declaration without relief of
recovery of possession was clearly not maintainable
and the trial court has rightly dismissed the suit.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2342 OF 2017
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ARULMIGU
CHOKKANATHA SWAMY KOIL TRUST
VIRUDHUNAGAR
V
CHANDRAN & ORS
Citation:(2017)3 SCC702
2. The defendant has filed this appeal against
judgment of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
dated 22.01.2013, by which judgment the High Court
while reversing the judgment of trial court and
First Appellate Court, has decreed the suit of the
plaintiff.
3. The brief facts of the case are:
The Respondent No. 1, who shall be hereinafter
referred to as plaintiff, filed Original Suit No.
33 of 2008 for the relief of declaration and
mandatory injunction. Plaintiff's case in the
plaint was that by Sale Deed dated 04.11.2007, he
has purchased an area of 2 acres and 73 cents being
part of Survey No. 188. The entire Plot No. 188
(area 7 acres and 84 cents) is recorded in the name
of Defendant No. 1. Mandatory injunction was prayed
to be issued, directing the Defendant Nos. 4 and 5
to correct the revenue records by entering the name
of plaintiff in the suit property. The plaintiff's
case was that the suit property belonged to one R.
Padmanabhan who vide Sale Deed dated 28th August,
1992 on his behalf and on behalf of his minor sons
transferred 2 acres 72 cents area being part of
Survey No. 188 in favour of one Sanjay Ramasamy,
correspondent of Annai Velankanni Women Teacher
Training School. Sanjay Ramasamy executed a General
Power of Attorney in favour of one Bhaskaran on
31.10.2007 and it was Bhaskaran who executed the
Sale Deed dated 04.11.2007 in favour of thePage 3
3
plaintiff. Plaintiff, further stated that when he
went to Revenue Tehsildar for issuance of patta in
his favour, he came to know that it is in the name
of first Defendant. Consequently, the suit was
filed, seeking declaration and mandatory
injunction.
4. A written statement was filed by the first
Defendant, controverting the plaint allegation. It
was pleaded that plaintiff or his predecessors in
interest were never the owner of the suit property.
The Defendant No. 1, hereinafter referred to as
Temple, has been the owner in possession of the
suit property whose name is also recorded in the
revenue records. It was pleaded that there is no
such Survey No. as 188 in the whole village. The
only available Survey Nos. as per the revenue
records are 188/1, 188/2 and 188/3. The first
Defendant is entitled to the Survey No. 188/1 and
188/3, which are in possession and continuous
enjoyment of Temple from the time immemorial. The
property register of the Temple, which is
maintained by Special Tehsildar, Hindu Religious &
Charitable Endowment Department, records the Temple
as the owner of the property. Survey No. 188/2 is
in the possession and enjoyment of one Janaki
Ammal, who being not a party, the suit is not
maintainable and it is bad for misjoinder and
nonjoinder of necessary party. The defendants
numbers 2 to 4 have adopted the written statement
of defendant No.1.
5. Plaintiff, initially in the plaint, had claimed
for the reliefs of declaration and mandatory
injunction for an area 2 ares 73 cents as part of
Survey No. 188. Subsequently, the plaint was got
amended by the plaintiff, mentioning the suit
property as Survey No. 188/3. The Plaintiff in
support of his case filed documentary as well as
oral evidences of PW 1 to PW 5. The Defendant in
support of his case has also filed documentary as
well as oral evidences of DW 1, Senior AccountantPage 5
5
in defendant's temple.
6. Trial court framed the following five issues:
"1. Whether the plaintiff is
entitled for the relief of
declaration as prayed for?
2. Whether the plaintiff is
entitled for mandatory injunction
as prayed for?”
3. Whether the suit is bad for
non joinder of necessary party?
4. To any other relief?
Additional issue framed on
17.08.2010:
1. Whether this suit is
maintainable?”
7. Trial court, while answering the issue No. 1 to
4 and additional issue No. 1 held that Survey No.
188 further has been subdivided into Survey No.
188/1, 188/2 and 188/3. The trial court further
held that there is no explanation submitted by the
plaintiff that how he has got amended the Survey
No. 188/3 in the original suit. It held that the
description of the suit property is not correct.Page 6
6
It was also held that name of Padmanabhan was never
recorded in the revenue records. Patta was never
transferred in the name of Sanjay Ramasamy, who had
no right to execute a General Power of Attorney in
favour of Bhaskaran. It was held that no document
has been produced to prove that Padmanabhan was in
possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
None of those persons, who claimed to be vendors
have been examined. Finding was returned that the
Survey No. 188 was never in the name of
Padmanabhan.
8. It was held that suit property belonged to
Temple, which is in possession for a long time
continuously. The trial court further recorded a
finding that plaintiff had failed to prove, that
property belonged to the plaintiff and it is in
possession hence declaratory reliefs cannot be
granted to the plaintiff and thereby suit is not
maintainable.
9. Answering the issue No. 6, trial court heldPage 7
7
that PW 1, the plaintiff having deposed in his
crossexamination, that survey No. 188/2 is in the
name of Janaki Ammal and she had sold the property
to some other persons. The Janaki Ammal being
necessary party who has not been impleaded in the
suit, the suit is hit by nonjoinder of a necessary
party.
10. The plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment of the
trial court filed an appeal. The Appellate Court
vide its judgment dated 31.10.2011 after
reappraising the entire evidence on the record
affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court
that plaintiff is not the owner of the suit
property. The Appellate Court further held that on
the date when plaintiff purchased the property in
2007, Survey No. 188 was already subdivided in
188/1, 188/2 and 188/3. The vendors of the
plaintiff did not have patta, chitta and adangal of
the suit property.
11. The Appellate Court held that Survey No. 188/1Page 8
8
and 188/3 belong to Temple and survey No. 188/2
belongs to Janaki Ammal who having not impleaded,
the suit is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of
necessary party. It was held that plaintiff was not
entitled for declaration and mandatory injunction.
12. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Appellate
Court, second appeal was filed by the plaintiff in
the High Court. The High Court vide its judgment
and order dated 22.01.2013, allowed the second
appeal by setting aside the decrees of the trial
court and Appellate Court respectively. The High
Court although, set aside the decree of courts
below and decreed the suit but directed the
Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 to include the name of the
plaintiff after excluding the extent of property
which stands in the name of the first Defendant.
13. The High Court in its judgment did not disturb
the findings of the courts below that Temple is the
owner of 188/1 and 188/3 total area of 5 acres and
10 cents of land. The High Court, however, heldPage 9
9
that total area of 188 being 7 acres and 84 cents,
plaintiff was entitled for the remaining extent of
plot No. 188. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High
Court, this appeal has been filed by the Defendant
No. 1.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of
appeal contends that the High Court in exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC has interfered
with the concurrent findings of the facts, recorded
by Courts below that the plaintiff has failed to
proof his title and possession.
15. It is submitted that plaintiff having himself
admitted that Survey No. 188/2 stood in the name of
Janaki Ammal and Janaki Ammal without having been
impleaded, the suit of plaintiff was correctly
dismissed by two courts below on the grounds of
misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary party.
Further, the description of the property in the
plaint was incorrect and inspite of the amendment
of the plaint, no correction having been made inPage 10
10
the sale deed, plaintiff could not have been given
any right on Survey No. 188/3.
16. The plaintiff came with the case that
Padmanabhan acquired the property through
inheritance, but in his deposition, it is stated
that property was purchased by Padmanabhan. The
property being never in the name of Padmanabhan in
the records, there was no title vested in the
plaintiff. Defendant proved that Survey No. 188/1
and 188/3 having been in the name of Temple, no
right could have been granted to the plaintiff.
17. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff
submitted that High Court has rightly set aside the
judgment and decrees of the two courts below.
Plaintiff had proved his title to the suit property
by virtue of Sale Deed dated 29.07.1974 Annexure
R.1, Sale Deed dated 28.08.1992 and Sale Deed dated
04.11.2007. It is contended that title of
Padmanabhan was fully proved by Sale Deed dated
29.07.1974, which was executed by one RajakambalamPage 11
11
Sundara Rajan with regard to part of Survey No. 188
area 2.79 acres.
18. We have considered the submission of the
learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record. The trial court after considering the both
oral and documentary evidence brought on record,
dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by recording
following findings:
(i) Plaintiff has failed to prove by
producing any document to show that
Padmanabhan had any right and
possession over the suit property.
(ii)Survey No. 188/1 and 188/3 are in
the name of Defendant No. 1, the
Temple.
(iii) The suit property belonged to
Defendant No. 1 and it is in possession
for a long time continuously.
(iv)Plaintiff in his suit has prayed
for the reliefs of declaration without
seeking the relief for the possessionPage 12
12
hence the suit was not legally
maintainable.
(v) Plaintiff cannot be granted the
decree of the declaration and mandatory
injunction.
(vi)Survey No. 188/2 being in the name
of Janaki Ammal, she having not been
made party to the suit, suit was hit by
the principle of non joinder of the
necessary party.
19. The Appellate Court, after adverting to
documentary and oral evidence has confirmed the
above findings. Appellate Court has also rejected
the application filed by the plaintiff, for
amending the plaint for incorporating new
pleadings. Appellate Court held that by amendment,
plaintiff intends to fill up the gap and wanted to
change the entire nature of the case, which cannot
be permitted.
20. The plaintiff came with the case in the suit
that R. Padmanabhan was the owner of the property,Page 13
13
who transferred it to in favour of Sanjay Ramasamy
on whose General Power of Attorney Bhaskaran has
transferred the property to the plaintiff by Sale
Deed dated 04.11.2007. Trial Court has
categorically recorded a finding that R.
Padmanabhan was never a recorded owner of the
property and no patta was issued in his favour.
21. The plaintiff initially in the plaint has
prayed for decree for an area of 2.73 acres, as
part of Survey No. 188. Sale Deed dated 04.11.2007
also mentions the suit property as part of Survey
No. 188. Plaintiff himself has examined PW 4, A.
Murugesan, Surveyor at Virudhunagar District,
Collectorate Office. PW 4 in the statement has
stated that he has brought the village revenue
records for the year 1983 with regard to Survey No.
188/1, 188/2 & 188/3. It is useful to extract the
statement of PW 4, which was to the following
effect:
"I received summons from this
Hon'ble court to depose witness.
I brought Chinnamoopanpatti
Village's revenue records for the
year 1983 with regard to S. No.
188/1, 188/2 & 188/3. I am
producing 1914 settlement.”
22. From the above, it is clear that Sub Divisions
188/1, 188/2 & 188/3 were in existence at least
since before 1983. The deeds on which the reliance
has been placed by the plaintiff i.e. Sale Deed
dated 28.08.1992, by which Padmanabhan is said to
have transferred the property in favour of Sanjay
Ramasamy as well as General Power of Attorney dated
31.10.2007 and Sale Deed dated 04.11.2007 in the
name of plaintiff, the suit property is not
described by sub division rather it is mentioned as
part of Plot No. 188. Although, plaintiff got his
plaint amended by amending part of Plot No. 188 as
Survey No. 188/3 but Sale Deed being not for Survey
No. 188/3, both the trial court and the Appellate
Court have rightly come to the conclusion that the
plaintiff failed to correctly describe the suit
property and it cannot be accepted that deeds
claimed by him referred to the suit property.
23. Learned counsel for the respondent has laid
much emphasis on the Deed dated 29.7.1974 executed
by Sundara Rajan in favour of Padmanabhan which has
been brought on the record of paper book at page
No.104. Learned counsel submits that said sale deed
clearly proves the title of Padmanabhan over 2.79
acres of Survey No.188. The said deed has been
filed by the plaintiffrespondent as Exhibit A14.
The Deed dated 29.7.1974 has been specifically
considered by the trial court in para 9 of the
judgment. The trial court has in its judgment
noticed that plaintiff came with the case in the
plaint that suit property was inherited by
Padmanabhan, however, he relied on Exhibits A12 to
A14 with regard to which there was no pleading in
the plaint. In his deposition, PW.1 admitted that
“it is correct to say that without disclosing this
deed in the plaint I filed Exhibits A12 to A15”.
When there was no pleading in the plaint regarding
title of Padmanabhan by any other earlier deed
except the claim of inheritance the trial court
rightly discarded the Deed dated 29.7.1974. It is
further relevant to note that plaintiff's
application made for amendment of the plaint in the
Appellate Court was considered and rejected by the
Appellate Court. The evidence, with regard of which
there is no pleading, has rightly been discarded by
the trial court. Unless there is a pleading
especially with regard to the source of title, the
defendant of a suit has no opportunity to rebut
such pleading thus an evidence with regard to which
there is no pleading can not be relied by the
plaintiff for setting up his title in a suit.
Secondly, the deed dated 29.7.1974 referred to
part of Survey No.188, whereas the suit was filed
in 2007 by the plaintiff by which date the Survey
No.188 was subdivided as 188/1, 188/2, 188/3. The
deeds through which plaintiff claims title i.e.
28.8.1982, General Power of Attorney dated
31.10.2007 and sale deed dated 05.11.2007 do not
refer to any subdivision. The plaintiff although
amended the schedule property from part of Plot No.
188 as Survey No.188/3 but he failed to prove his
title over Plot No.188/3. We, thus, do find that
the trial court after considering the document
dated 29.7.1974 held that plaintiff failed to prove
his title.
24. As noted above, there was categorical finding
by trial court and First Appellate Court that
Defendant No. 1 is the owner of Survey No. 188/1 (2
acres and 2 cents) and 188/3(2 acres and 88 cents).
In the documentary evidence, filed by the defendant
both the aforesaid sub divisions i.e. Survey No.
188/1 and 188/3 were recorded as the Temple
property. In the property records maintained by the
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department
also Survey Nos. 188/1 & 188/3 were recorded in the
name of Temple. Extract of the property registered
was produced before the courts below which was
believed.Page 18
18
25. The High Court, in its judgment has also
accepted that the Temple's name is recorded for
Survey Nos. 188/1 and 188/3. The High Court, in
its judgment had held that total extent of 188/1
and 188/3 is only 5 acres and 10 cents, whereas,
plot No. 188 is 7 acres 84 cents, hence, the
plaintiff was entitled to the remaining extent.
Following observations have been made by the High
Court in Para 16:
"16. The first defendant has put
forth its right, title and
interest over the suit property by
virtue of Exs. B1 to B3. In
Exhibits B1 to B3, it has been
clearly stated that Sub Division
Nos. 188/1 and 3 are standing in
the name of the first defendant
and its total extent is 5 acre 10
cents. It has already been pointed
out that the total extent of
original Survey No. 188 is 7 acre
84 cents. By virtue of Exs. B1 to
B3, the first defendant is
entitled to get only 5 acre 10
cents and in the remaining
extent, the first defendant cannot
claim any right, title and
interest.”
26. Thus, the High court has also affirmed thePage 19
19
findings of the courts below that Temple is
entitled for Survey No. 188/1 and 188/3 i.e. 5
acres and 10 cents land. In spite of the aforesaid
findings, the High Court proceeded to decree the
suit on the basis of its reasoning, as given in
paragraphs 16 & 18 of the judgment. Para 18 of the
judgment of the High Court is as below:
"18. Considering the fact that no
document has been filed for the
purpose of establishing that
Survey No. 188/2 stands in the
name of Janaki Ammal and also
considering that the first
defendant is not the absolute
owner of the entire extent of old
Survey No. 188 except 5 acre 10
cents of land, the Court can very
well declare that the plaintiff is
the owner of the suit property and
since it is seen from Ex. A30 that
the entire extent of old Survey
number stands in the name of first
defendant, the ancillary relief of
mandatory injunction can also be
granted in favour of the
plaintiff.”
27. The High Court proceeded on the premise that
no document has been filed for purpose of
establishing that Survey No. 188/2 stands in the
name of Janaki Ammal and further, the High Court
proceeded that First Defendant being not absolute
owner of the old Survey No. 188 except 5 acres and
10 cents, the plaintiff is the owner of the rest of
the property.
28. Thus virtually, the suit has been decreed by
the High Court for Survey No. 188/2, whereas,
Survey No. 188/2 was admittedly recorded in the
name of Janaki Ammal, who was not impleaded in the
suit nor any relief was claimed against the Janaki
Ammal or for Survey No.188/2. In this context, it
is useful to refer to the evidence of Plaintiff
himself i.e. PW 1. PW 1, in his deposition before
the court, has admitted the fact that Survey No.
188/2 is in the name of Janaki Ammal and he has not
initiated any action against her nor she was
impleaded in the suit. Following statement was made
by the PW 1 in his statement:
"It is correct to say that S.No.
188/2 stands in the name of Janaki
Ammal. Now the said Janaki Ammal
sold that property to third
person. I have not initiated any
action to include Janaki Ammal as
a party to this suit.”
29. In view of the statement of the plaintiff
himself that Survey No. 188/2 is in the name of
Janaki Ammal, the observations of the High Court
that no documentary evidence was filed for the
purpose of establishing that Survey No. 188/2
stands in the name of Janaki Ammal are erroneous
and misplaced. When Plaintiff himself admitted
that Survey No. 188/2 is recorded in the name of
Janaki Ammal, there was no basis for the High Court
to come to conclusion that plaintiff is entitled
for the area apart from 5 acres and 10 cents, which
belonged to the Temple.
20. As noted above, one of the issues framed, as to
whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of
necessary party. The said issue was answered
against the plaintiff and it was held that suit is
bad for nonjoinder of Janaki Ammal a necessary
party, whose name was recorded against Survey No.
188/2. Without adverting to the said findings of
the trial court and the Appellate Court, the High
Court has erroneously decreed the suit of the
plaintiff.
31. There is one more reason due to which the
judgment and the decree of the High Court cannot be
sustained. The trial court in its judgment has
categorically recorded findings that the Defendant
No. 1 is in possession of the suit property. In
para 10 following findings have been recorded by
the trial court:
"From the oral depositions and
exhibits produced on behalf of
defendant 1, it is clearly found
that the suit property belonged to
defendant 1 Arulmigu Chokkanatha
Swamy Temple and it is in its
possession for a long time
continuously.”
32. One of the submissions made before the courts
below, on behalf of the defendant, was that the
suit for mere declaration when the plaintiff was
not in possession of the property, was not
maintainable and hit by Section 34 of The SpecificPage 23
23
Reliefs Act, 1963, the plaintiff having not sought
for recovery of possession.
33. Trial court, after considering the aforesaid
submissions, recorded its conclusions in para 14
which is to the following effect:
"From the facts of above cited
suit, plaintiff in this suit has
prayed for the relief of
declaration without seeking the
relief of recovery of possession
and under these circumstances, it
is clearly seen that the plaintiff
is not entitled to get such
relief. Therefore, it is held that
the suit is not maintainable
legally.”
34. Section 34 of the Specific Reliefs Act, 1963
provides as follows:
"Section 34. Discretion of court
as to declaration of status or
right.Any person entitled to any
legal character, or to any right
as to any property, may institute
a suit against any person denying,
or interested to deny, his title
to such character or right, and
the court may in its discretion
make therein a declaration that he
is so entitled, and the plaintiff
need not in such suit ask for anyPage 24
24
further relief:
Provided that no court shall
make any such declaration where
the plaintiff, being able to seek
further relief than a mere
declaration of title, omits to do
so.
..... ..... ....”
35. In the present case, the plaintiff having been
found not to be in possession and having only
sought for declaratory reliefs, the suit was
clearly not maintainable and has rightly been
dismissed by the trial court. In this context the
reference is made to the judgment of this Court
reported in Ram Saran and Anr. versus Smt. Ganga
Devi, AIR 72 SC 2685, wherein para 1 & 4 following
was stated:
"1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal
by special leave. Ram Saran and
Raghubir Saran, the plaintiffs are
brothers. They jointly owned suit
property with Chhabili Kuer widow
of Lalita Prasad. After the death
of Chhabili Kuer on February 8,
1971, Ganga Devi the defendant in
the suit came forward as the legal
representative of Chhabili Kuer
and got the mutation effected in
her name in the place of thePage 25
25
deceased Chhabili Kuer. In 1958,
the plaintiffs brought this suit
for a declaration that they are
the sole owners of the suit
properties. They did not claim
possession either of the entire or
even any portion of the suit
properties.
4. We are in agreement with the
High Court that the suit is hit by
Section 42 of the Specific Relief
Act. As found by the factfinding
Courts, Ganga Devi is in
possession of some of the suit
properties. The plaintiffs have
not sought possession of those
properties. They merely claimed a
declaration that they are the
owners of the suit properties.
Hence the suit is not
maintainable.”
36. The plaintiff, who was not in possession, had
in the suit claimed only declaratory relief along
with mandatory injunction. Plaintiff being out of
possession, the relief of recovery of possession
was a further relief which ought to have been
claimed by the plaintiff. The suit filed by the
plaintiff for a mere declaration without relief of
recovery of possession was clearly not maintainable
and the trial court has rightly dismissed the suit.
The High Court neither adverted to the above
finding of the trial court nor has set aside the
above reasoning given by the trial court for
holding the suit as not maintainable. The High
Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section
100 C.P.C. could not have reversed the decree of
the courts below without holding that the above
reasoning given by the courts below was legally
unsustainable. We, thus, are of the view that the
High Court committed error in decreeing the suit.
37. The decree of the High Court is also
contradictory. The High Court has affirmed the
findings that Defendant No. 1 is the owner of the
Survey No. 188/1 and 188/3, whereas, by decreeing
the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction
the name of Defendant No. 1 is to be removed and
replaced by plaintiff which is clearly erroneous
and unsustainable.
38. In view of the above, judgment of the High
Court cannot be sustained. The High Court committed
an error in reversing the judgments of the trial
court and the First Appellate Court. In result,
the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High
Court is set aside and those of trial court and the
First Appellate Court are restored.
…….…...........................J.
(RANJAN GOGOI)
.….....…...........................J.
(ASHOK BHUSHAN)
NEW DELHI,
FEBRUARY 10, 2017.
Print Page
in the suit claimed only declaratory relief along
with mandatory injunction. Plaintiff being out of
possession, the relief of recovery of possession
was a further relief which ought to have been
claimed by the plaintiff. The suit filed by the
plaintiff for a mere declaration without relief of
recovery of possession was clearly not maintainable
and the trial court has rightly dismissed the suit.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2342 OF 2017
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ARULMIGU
CHOKKANATHA SWAMY KOIL TRUST
VIRUDHUNAGAR
V
CHANDRAN & ORS
Citation:(2017)3 SCC702
2. The defendant has filed this appeal against
judgment of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
dated 22.01.2013, by which judgment the High Court
while reversing the judgment of trial court and
First Appellate Court, has decreed the suit of the
plaintiff.
3. The brief facts of the case are:
The Respondent No. 1, who shall be hereinafter
referred to as plaintiff, filed Original Suit No.
33 of 2008 for the relief of declaration and
mandatory injunction. Plaintiff's case in the
plaint was that by Sale Deed dated 04.11.2007, he
has purchased an area of 2 acres and 73 cents being
part of Survey No. 188. The entire Plot No. 188
(area 7 acres and 84 cents) is recorded in the name
of Defendant No. 1. Mandatory injunction was prayed
to be issued, directing the Defendant Nos. 4 and 5
to correct the revenue records by entering the name
of plaintiff in the suit property. The plaintiff's
case was that the suit property belonged to one R.
Padmanabhan who vide Sale Deed dated 28th August,
1992 on his behalf and on behalf of his minor sons
transferred 2 acres 72 cents area being part of
Survey No. 188 in favour of one Sanjay Ramasamy,
correspondent of Annai Velankanni Women Teacher
Training School. Sanjay Ramasamy executed a General
Power of Attorney in favour of one Bhaskaran on
31.10.2007 and it was Bhaskaran who executed the
Sale Deed dated 04.11.2007 in favour of thePage 3
3
plaintiff. Plaintiff, further stated that when he
went to Revenue Tehsildar for issuance of patta in
his favour, he came to know that it is in the name
of first Defendant. Consequently, the suit was
filed, seeking declaration and mandatory
injunction.
4. A written statement was filed by the first
Defendant, controverting the plaint allegation. It
was pleaded that plaintiff or his predecessors in
interest were never the owner of the suit property.
The Defendant No. 1, hereinafter referred to as
Temple, has been the owner in possession of the
suit property whose name is also recorded in the
revenue records. It was pleaded that there is no
such Survey No. as 188 in the whole village. The
only available Survey Nos. as per the revenue
records are 188/1, 188/2 and 188/3. The first
Defendant is entitled to the Survey No. 188/1 and
188/3, which are in possession and continuous
enjoyment of Temple from the time immemorial. The
property register of the Temple, which is
maintained by Special Tehsildar, Hindu Religious &
Charitable Endowment Department, records the Temple
as the owner of the property. Survey No. 188/2 is
in the possession and enjoyment of one Janaki
Ammal, who being not a party, the suit is not
maintainable and it is bad for misjoinder and
nonjoinder of necessary party. The defendants
numbers 2 to 4 have adopted the written statement
of defendant No.1.
5. Plaintiff, initially in the plaint, had claimed
for the reliefs of declaration and mandatory
injunction for an area 2 ares 73 cents as part of
Survey No. 188. Subsequently, the plaint was got
amended by the plaintiff, mentioning the suit
property as Survey No. 188/3. The Plaintiff in
support of his case filed documentary as well as
oral evidences of PW 1 to PW 5. The Defendant in
support of his case has also filed documentary as
well as oral evidences of DW 1, Senior AccountantPage 5
5
in defendant's temple.
6. Trial court framed the following five issues:
"1. Whether the plaintiff is
entitled for the relief of
declaration as prayed for?
2. Whether the plaintiff is
entitled for mandatory injunction
as prayed for?”
3. Whether the suit is bad for
non joinder of necessary party?
4. To any other relief?
Additional issue framed on
17.08.2010:
1. Whether this suit is
maintainable?”
7. Trial court, while answering the issue No. 1 to
4 and additional issue No. 1 held that Survey No.
188 further has been subdivided into Survey No.
188/1, 188/2 and 188/3. The trial court further
held that there is no explanation submitted by the
plaintiff that how he has got amended the Survey
No. 188/3 in the original suit. It held that the
description of the suit property is not correct.Page 6
6
It was also held that name of Padmanabhan was never
recorded in the revenue records. Patta was never
transferred in the name of Sanjay Ramasamy, who had
no right to execute a General Power of Attorney in
favour of Bhaskaran. It was held that no document
has been produced to prove that Padmanabhan was in
possession and enjoyment of the suit property.
None of those persons, who claimed to be vendors
have been examined. Finding was returned that the
Survey No. 188 was never in the name of
Padmanabhan.
8. It was held that suit property belonged to
Temple, which is in possession for a long time
continuously. The trial court further recorded a
finding that plaintiff had failed to prove, that
property belonged to the plaintiff and it is in
possession hence declaratory reliefs cannot be
granted to the plaintiff and thereby suit is not
maintainable.
9. Answering the issue No. 6, trial court heldPage 7
7
that PW 1, the plaintiff having deposed in his
crossexamination, that survey No. 188/2 is in the
name of Janaki Ammal and she had sold the property
to some other persons. The Janaki Ammal being
necessary party who has not been impleaded in the
suit, the suit is hit by nonjoinder of a necessary
party.
10. The plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment of the
trial court filed an appeal. The Appellate Court
vide its judgment dated 31.10.2011 after
reappraising the entire evidence on the record
affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court
that plaintiff is not the owner of the suit
property. The Appellate Court further held that on
the date when plaintiff purchased the property in
2007, Survey No. 188 was already subdivided in
188/1, 188/2 and 188/3. The vendors of the
plaintiff did not have patta, chitta and adangal of
the suit property.
11. The Appellate Court held that Survey No. 188/1Page 8
8
and 188/3 belong to Temple and survey No. 188/2
belongs to Janaki Ammal who having not impleaded,
the suit is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of
necessary party. It was held that plaintiff was not
entitled for declaration and mandatory injunction.
12. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Appellate
Court, second appeal was filed by the plaintiff in
the High Court. The High Court vide its judgment
and order dated 22.01.2013, allowed the second
appeal by setting aside the decrees of the trial
court and Appellate Court respectively. The High
Court although, set aside the decree of courts
below and decreed the suit but directed the
Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 to include the name of the
plaintiff after excluding the extent of property
which stands in the name of the first Defendant.
13. The High Court in its judgment did not disturb
the findings of the courts below that Temple is the
owner of 188/1 and 188/3 total area of 5 acres and
10 cents of land. The High Court, however, heldPage 9
9
that total area of 188 being 7 acres and 84 cents,
plaintiff was entitled for the remaining extent of
plot No. 188. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High
Court, this appeal has been filed by the Defendant
No. 1.
14. Learned counsel for the appellant in support of
appeal contends that the High Court in exercise of
jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC has interfered
with the concurrent findings of the facts, recorded
by Courts below that the plaintiff has failed to
proof his title and possession.
15. It is submitted that plaintiff having himself
admitted that Survey No. 188/2 stood in the name of
Janaki Ammal and Janaki Ammal without having been
impleaded, the suit of plaintiff was correctly
dismissed by two courts below on the grounds of
misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary party.
Further, the description of the property in the
plaint was incorrect and inspite of the amendment
of the plaint, no correction having been made inPage 10
10
the sale deed, plaintiff could not have been given
any right on Survey No. 188/3.
16. The plaintiff came with the case that
Padmanabhan acquired the property through
inheritance, but in his deposition, it is stated
that property was purchased by Padmanabhan. The
property being never in the name of Padmanabhan in
the records, there was no title vested in the
plaintiff. Defendant proved that Survey No. 188/1
and 188/3 having been in the name of Temple, no
right could have been granted to the plaintiff.
17. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff
submitted that High Court has rightly set aside the
judgment and decrees of the two courts below.
Plaintiff had proved his title to the suit property
by virtue of Sale Deed dated 29.07.1974 Annexure
R.1, Sale Deed dated 28.08.1992 and Sale Deed dated
04.11.2007. It is contended that title of
Padmanabhan was fully proved by Sale Deed dated
29.07.1974, which was executed by one RajakambalamPage 11
11
Sundara Rajan with regard to part of Survey No. 188
area 2.79 acres.
18. We have considered the submission of the
learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record. The trial court after considering the both
oral and documentary evidence brought on record,
dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by recording
following findings:
(i) Plaintiff has failed to prove by
producing any document to show that
Padmanabhan had any right and
possession over the suit property.
(ii)Survey No. 188/1 and 188/3 are in
the name of Defendant No. 1, the
Temple.
(iii) The suit property belonged to
Defendant No. 1 and it is in possession
for a long time continuously.
(iv)Plaintiff in his suit has prayed
for the reliefs of declaration without
seeking the relief for the possessionPage 12
12
hence the suit was not legally
maintainable.
(v) Plaintiff cannot be granted the
decree of the declaration and mandatory
injunction.
(vi)Survey No. 188/2 being in the name
of Janaki Ammal, she having not been
made party to the suit, suit was hit by
the principle of non joinder of the
necessary party.
19. The Appellate Court, after adverting to
documentary and oral evidence has confirmed the
above findings. Appellate Court has also rejected
the application filed by the plaintiff, for
amending the plaint for incorporating new
pleadings. Appellate Court held that by amendment,
plaintiff intends to fill up the gap and wanted to
change the entire nature of the case, which cannot
be permitted.
20. The plaintiff came with the case in the suit
that R. Padmanabhan was the owner of the property,Page 13
13
who transferred it to in favour of Sanjay Ramasamy
on whose General Power of Attorney Bhaskaran has
transferred the property to the plaintiff by Sale
Deed dated 04.11.2007. Trial Court has
categorically recorded a finding that R.
Padmanabhan was never a recorded owner of the
property and no patta was issued in his favour.
21. The plaintiff initially in the plaint has
prayed for decree for an area of 2.73 acres, as
part of Survey No. 188. Sale Deed dated 04.11.2007
also mentions the suit property as part of Survey
No. 188. Plaintiff himself has examined PW 4, A.
Murugesan, Surveyor at Virudhunagar District,
Collectorate Office. PW 4 in the statement has
stated that he has brought the village revenue
records for the year 1983 with regard to Survey No.
188/1, 188/2 & 188/3. It is useful to extract the
statement of PW 4, which was to the following
effect:
"I received summons from this
Hon'ble court to depose witness.
I brought Chinnamoopanpatti
Village's revenue records for the
year 1983 with regard to S. No.
188/1, 188/2 & 188/3. I am
producing 1914 settlement.”
22. From the above, it is clear that Sub Divisions
188/1, 188/2 & 188/3 were in existence at least
since before 1983. The deeds on which the reliance
has been placed by the plaintiff i.e. Sale Deed
dated 28.08.1992, by which Padmanabhan is said to
have transferred the property in favour of Sanjay
Ramasamy as well as General Power of Attorney dated
31.10.2007 and Sale Deed dated 04.11.2007 in the
name of plaintiff, the suit property is not
described by sub division rather it is mentioned as
part of Plot No. 188. Although, plaintiff got his
plaint amended by amending part of Plot No. 188 as
Survey No. 188/3 but Sale Deed being not for Survey
No. 188/3, both the trial court and the Appellate
Court have rightly come to the conclusion that the
plaintiff failed to correctly describe the suit
property and it cannot be accepted that deeds
claimed by him referred to the suit property.
23. Learned counsel for the respondent has laid
much emphasis on the Deed dated 29.7.1974 executed
by Sundara Rajan in favour of Padmanabhan which has
been brought on the record of paper book at page
No.104. Learned counsel submits that said sale deed
clearly proves the title of Padmanabhan over 2.79
acres of Survey No.188. The said deed has been
filed by the plaintiffrespondent as Exhibit A14.
The Deed dated 29.7.1974 has been specifically
considered by the trial court in para 9 of the
judgment. The trial court has in its judgment
noticed that plaintiff came with the case in the
plaint that suit property was inherited by
Padmanabhan, however, he relied on Exhibits A12 to
A14 with regard to which there was no pleading in
the plaint. In his deposition, PW.1 admitted that
“it is correct to say that without disclosing this
deed in the plaint I filed Exhibits A12 to A15”.
When there was no pleading in the plaint regarding
title of Padmanabhan by any other earlier deed
except the claim of inheritance the trial court
rightly discarded the Deed dated 29.7.1974. It is
further relevant to note that plaintiff's
application made for amendment of the plaint in the
Appellate Court was considered and rejected by the
Appellate Court. The evidence, with regard of which
there is no pleading, has rightly been discarded by
the trial court. Unless there is a pleading
especially with regard to the source of title, the
defendant of a suit has no opportunity to rebut
such pleading thus an evidence with regard to which
there is no pleading can not be relied by the
plaintiff for setting up his title in a suit.
Secondly, the deed dated 29.7.1974 referred to
part of Survey No.188, whereas the suit was filed
in 2007 by the plaintiff by which date the Survey
No.188 was subdivided as 188/1, 188/2, 188/3. The
deeds through which plaintiff claims title i.e.
28.8.1982, General Power of Attorney dated
31.10.2007 and sale deed dated 05.11.2007 do not
refer to any subdivision. The plaintiff although
amended the schedule property from part of Plot No.
188 as Survey No.188/3 but he failed to prove his
title over Plot No.188/3. We, thus, do find that
the trial court after considering the document
dated 29.7.1974 held that plaintiff failed to prove
his title.
24. As noted above, there was categorical finding
by trial court and First Appellate Court that
Defendant No. 1 is the owner of Survey No. 188/1 (2
acres and 2 cents) and 188/3(2 acres and 88 cents).
In the documentary evidence, filed by the defendant
both the aforesaid sub divisions i.e. Survey No.
188/1 and 188/3 were recorded as the Temple
property. In the property records maintained by the
Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowment Department
also Survey Nos. 188/1 & 188/3 were recorded in the
name of Temple. Extract of the property registered
was produced before the courts below which was
believed.Page 18
18
25. The High Court, in its judgment has also
accepted that the Temple's name is recorded for
Survey Nos. 188/1 and 188/3. The High Court, in
its judgment had held that total extent of 188/1
and 188/3 is only 5 acres and 10 cents, whereas,
plot No. 188 is 7 acres 84 cents, hence, the
plaintiff was entitled to the remaining extent.
Following observations have been made by the High
Court in Para 16:
"16. The first defendant has put
forth its right, title and
interest over the suit property by
virtue of Exs. B1 to B3. In
Exhibits B1 to B3, it has been
clearly stated that Sub Division
Nos. 188/1 and 3 are standing in
the name of the first defendant
and its total extent is 5 acre 10
cents. It has already been pointed
out that the total extent of
original Survey No. 188 is 7 acre
84 cents. By virtue of Exs. B1 to
B3, the first defendant is
entitled to get only 5 acre 10
cents and in the remaining
extent, the first defendant cannot
claim any right, title and
interest.”
26. Thus, the High court has also affirmed thePage 19
19
findings of the courts below that Temple is
entitled for Survey No. 188/1 and 188/3 i.e. 5
acres and 10 cents land. In spite of the aforesaid
findings, the High Court proceeded to decree the
suit on the basis of its reasoning, as given in
paragraphs 16 & 18 of the judgment. Para 18 of the
judgment of the High Court is as below:
"18. Considering the fact that no
document has been filed for the
purpose of establishing that
Survey No. 188/2 stands in the
name of Janaki Ammal and also
considering that the first
defendant is not the absolute
owner of the entire extent of old
Survey No. 188 except 5 acre 10
cents of land, the Court can very
well declare that the plaintiff is
the owner of the suit property and
since it is seen from Ex. A30 that
the entire extent of old Survey
number stands in the name of first
defendant, the ancillary relief of
mandatory injunction can also be
granted in favour of the
plaintiff.”
27. The High Court proceeded on the premise that
no document has been filed for purpose of
establishing that Survey No. 188/2 stands in the
name of Janaki Ammal and further, the High Court
proceeded that First Defendant being not absolute
owner of the old Survey No. 188 except 5 acres and
10 cents, the plaintiff is the owner of the rest of
the property.
28. Thus virtually, the suit has been decreed by
the High Court for Survey No. 188/2, whereas,
Survey No. 188/2 was admittedly recorded in the
name of Janaki Ammal, who was not impleaded in the
suit nor any relief was claimed against the Janaki
Ammal or for Survey No.188/2. In this context, it
is useful to refer to the evidence of Plaintiff
himself i.e. PW 1. PW 1, in his deposition before
the court, has admitted the fact that Survey No.
188/2 is in the name of Janaki Ammal and he has not
initiated any action against her nor she was
impleaded in the suit. Following statement was made
by the PW 1 in his statement:
"It is correct to say that S.No.
188/2 stands in the name of Janaki
Ammal. Now the said Janaki Ammal
sold that property to third
person. I have not initiated any
action to include Janaki Ammal as
a party to this suit.”
29. In view of the statement of the plaintiff
himself that Survey No. 188/2 is in the name of
Janaki Ammal, the observations of the High Court
that no documentary evidence was filed for the
purpose of establishing that Survey No. 188/2
stands in the name of Janaki Ammal are erroneous
and misplaced. When Plaintiff himself admitted
that Survey No. 188/2 is recorded in the name of
Janaki Ammal, there was no basis for the High Court
to come to conclusion that plaintiff is entitled
for the area apart from 5 acres and 10 cents, which
belonged to the Temple.
20. As noted above, one of the issues framed, as to
whether the suit is bad for nonjoinder of
necessary party. The said issue was answered
against the plaintiff and it was held that suit is
bad for nonjoinder of Janaki Ammal a necessary
party, whose name was recorded against Survey No.
188/2. Without adverting to the said findings of
the trial court and the Appellate Court, the High
Court has erroneously decreed the suit of the
plaintiff.
31. There is one more reason due to which the
judgment and the decree of the High Court cannot be
sustained. The trial court in its judgment has
categorically recorded findings that the Defendant
No. 1 is in possession of the suit property. In
para 10 following findings have been recorded by
the trial court:
"From the oral depositions and
exhibits produced on behalf of
defendant 1, it is clearly found
that the suit property belonged to
defendant 1 Arulmigu Chokkanatha
Swamy Temple and it is in its
possession for a long time
continuously.”
32. One of the submissions made before the courts
below, on behalf of the defendant, was that the
suit for mere declaration when the plaintiff was
not in possession of the property, was not
maintainable and hit by Section 34 of The SpecificPage 23
23
Reliefs Act, 1963, the plaintiff having not sought
for recovery of possession.
33. Trial court, after considering the aforesaid
submissions, recorded its conclusions in para 14
which is to the following effect:
"From the facts of above cited
suit, plaintiff in this suit has
prayed for the relief of
declaration without seeking the
relief of recovery of possession
and under these circumstances, it
is clearly seen that the plaintiff
is not entitled to get such
relief. Therefore, it is held that
the suit is not maintainable
legally.”
34. Section 34 of the Specific Reliefs Act, 1963
provides as follows:
"Section 34. Discretion of court
as to declaration of status or
right.Any person entitled to any
legal character, or to any right
as to any property, may institute
a suit against any person denying,
or interested to deny, his title
to such character or right, and
the court may in its discretion
make therein a declaration that he
is so entitled, and the plaintiff
need not in such suit ask for anyPage 24
24
further relief:
Provided that no court shall
make any such declaration where
the plaintiff, being able to seek
further relief than a mere
declaration of title, omits to do
so.
..... ..... ....”
35. In the present case, the plaintiff having been
found not to be in possession and having only
sought for declaratory reliefs, the suit was
clearly not maintainable and has rightly been
dismissed by the trial court. In this context the
reference is made to the judgment of this Court
reported in Ram Saran and Anr. versus Smt. Ganga
Devi, AIR 72 SC 2685, wherein para 1 & 4 following
was stated:
"1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal
by special leave. Ram Saran and
Raghubir Saran, the plaintiffs are
brothers. They jointly owned suit
property with Chhabili Kuer widow
of Lalita Prasad. After the death
of Chhabili Kuer on February 8,
1971, Ganga Devi the defendant in
the suit came forward as the legal
representative of Chhabili Kuer
and got the mutation effected in
her name in the place of thePage 25
25
deceased Chhabili Kuer. In 1958,
the plaintiffs brought this suit
for a declaration that they are
the sole owners of the suit
properties. They did not claim
possession either of the entire or
even any portion of the suit
properties.
4. We are in agreement with the
High Court that the suit is hit by
Section 42 of the Specific Relief
Act. As found by the factfinding
Courts, Ganga Devi is in
possession of some of the suit
properties. The plaintiffs have
not sought possession of those
properties. They merely claimed a
declaration that they are the
owners of the suit properties.
Hence the suit is not
maintainable.”
36. The plaintiff, who was not in possession, had
in the suit claimed only declaratory relief along
with mandatory injunction. Plaintiff being out of
possession, the relief of recovery of possession
was a further relief which ought to have been
claimed by the plaintiff. The suit filed by the
plaintiff for a mere declaration without relief of
recovery of possession was clearly not maintainable
and the trial court has rightly dismissed the suit.
The High Court neither adverted to the above
finding of the trial court nor has set aside the
above reasoning given by the trial court for
holding the suit as not maintainable. The High
Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section
100 C.P.C. could not have reversed the decree of
the courts below without holding that the above
reasoning given by the courts below was legally
unsustainable. We, thus, are of the view that the
High Court committed error in decreeing the suit.
37. The decree of the High Court is also
contradictory. The High Court has affirmed the
findings that Defendant No. 1 is the owner of the
Survey No. 188/1 and 188/3, whereas, by decreeing
the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction
the name of Defendant No. 1 is to be removed and
replaced by plaintiff which is clearly erroneous
and unsustainable.
38. In view of the above, judgment of the High
Court cannot be sustained. The High Court committed
an error in reversing the judgments of the trial
court and the First Appellate Court. In result,
the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the High
Court is set aside and those of trial court and the
First Appellate Court are restored.
…….…...........................J.
(RANJAN GOGOI)
.….....…...........................J.
(ASHOK BHUSHAN)
NEW DELHI,
FEBRUARY 10, 2017.
No comments:
Post a Comment