Facts in nutshell are : SLP (C) Appeal
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/challenge-to-state-governments-directive-for-cadre-merger/
No 15541 of 2023 3.1
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.
Further case of the plaintiffs was that plaintiff no.2 and defendant no.2 were running a partnership business and the property in suit was offered as a security to the Karur Vysya Bank. It was thus the claim of the plaintiffs that the defendants would not have any right over the properties of Avinashi Gounder and that the plaintiffs were in possession and were cultivating the land in suit but as the defendant SLP (C) Appeal No 15541 of 2023 no.2 tried to trespass the suit property on 24.07.2011, the necessity for filing the suit arose.
The defendants had further pleaded that survey number in question had a total area of 2.17 cents in which Avanashigounder’s family had 1/3 share i.e. Palaniyappan, father of defendant no.1 had 24 cents in this property, out of which 12 cents fell to the share of defendant no.1, out of which, she sold 11 cents to the second defendant. Both the plaintiffs examined themselves as PW 1 and PW 2 and one Mathiyalagan was examined as PW 3 and they proved six papers Exh.A1 to A6.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/interpretation-of-policy-date-in-suicide-clause/
On behalf of the defendants one Balarajendra was examined as DW1 and he proved six papers SLP (C) Appeal
No 15541 of 2023 Exh.B1 to B6.
The SLP (C) Appeal
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/extension-of-investigation-period-under-uapa-courts-legal-analysis/
No 15541 of 2023 Subordinate Court, 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. The High Court relied upon Ex.A-3, A-4 and Ex.B-3 to hold that there had been an oral partition.
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. 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. ……………………………………J.
Case Title: RAJENDHIRAN Vs. MUTHAIAMMAL @ MUTHAYEE (2024 INSC 12)
Case Number: C.A. No.-000037-000037 / 2024
