EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ARULMIGU CHOKKANATHA SWAMY KOIL TRUST VIRUDHUNAGAR versus CHANDRAN & ORS.

Citation: [2017] 5 S.C.R. 473 · Decided: 10-02-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI, ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] 5 S.C.R. 473 
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ARULMIGU 
CHOKKANATHA SWAMY KOIL TRUST VIRUDHUNAGAR 
V.". 
CHANDRAN & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2342 of 2017) 
FEBRUARY l 0, 2017 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.] 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: 
A 
B 
s. I 00 - Suit for declaration of title and mandatory injunction 
C 
- Stating that he had purchased an area of 2 acres and 73 cents 
(suit property) which was part of Survey No.188 (measuring 7 acres 
84 cents) recorded in the name of defendant No. I - Also sought 
correction in revenue records by entering his name therein - Plea 
of defendant No. I that plaintiff or his predecessors were never the 
D 
owner of the suit property; that there was no survey number as I 88 
and the available survey numbers were 18811, 18812 and 18813; 
that survey Nos.18811 and 18813 (measuring 5 acres JO cents) were 
in the name of defendant No.I and Survey No.18812 was in the 
name of a third party (not impleaded in the suit) - Plaint was 
E 
amended mention~ng the suit property as Survey No. I 8813 - Trial 
court dismissed the suit holding that description of suit property 
was not correct; that Survey No.188 was never in the name of 
predecessors in interest of the plaintiff; and that the suit was hit by 
non-joinder of necessary party - Appellate court affirmed the order 
of trial court - Jn second appeal, High Court reversed the orders of F 
courts below directing to include name of the plaintiff in revenue 
records after excluding extent of property which stood in the name 
of first defendant - On appeal, held: Plaintiff failed to correctly 
describe the suit property - He failed to prove his title - High Court 
having held the defendant No.I was entitled to Survey Nos. 18811 
and I 8813 has virtually decreed the suit for survey No. I 8812 which 
G 
is admittedly recorded in the name of third party - High Court in 
exercise of jurisdiction uls. 100 could not have reversed the order 
of courts below without holding that reasoning given by courts below 
was legally unsustainable. 
473 
H 
474 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 5 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The plaintiff came with the case in the suit that 
'P' was the owner of the property, who transferred it in favour 
of 'S', on whose General Power of Attorney 'B' has transferred 
the property to the plaintiff by Sale Deed dated 04.11.2007. Trial 
B 
Court has categorically recorded a finding that 'P' was never a 
recorded owner of the property and no patta was issued in his 
favour. [Para 20] [481-C] 
1.2 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 
c dated 04.11.2007 also mentions the suit property as part of 
Survey No. 188. Plaintiff himself has examined PW-4, Surveyor 
at Collectorate Office, who 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. Sub Divisions 188/1, 188/2 & 188/3 
were in existence at least since before 1983. The deeds on 
D which the reliance has been placed by the plaintiff i.e. Sale Deed 
dated 28.08.1992, by which 'P' is said to have transferred the 
property in favour of 'S' 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, 
E 
F 
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. [Paras 21, 22] 
[481-D-E, F-H; 482-A] 
1.3 The Deed dated 29.7.1974 executed in favour of 'P' 
has been relied on by the plaintiff to prove the title of 'P' over 
2.79 acres of Survey No.188. The said deed has been filed by 
G the plaintiff-respondent as Exhibit A-14. The trial court has in its 
judgment noticed that plaintiff came with the case in the plaint 
that suit property was inherited by 'P', however, he relied on 
Exhibits A-12 toA-14 with regard to which there was no pleading 
in the plaint. In his deposition, PW.1 admitted that without 
H disclosing this deed in the plaint, he filed Exhibits A-12 to A-
.· 
,, 
' 
EXECUTIVE OFFICER,ARULMIGU CHOKKANATHA SWAMYKOIL 
475 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.