w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



B. Vijayalakshmi & Another v/s M/s. Rane Engine Valves Ltd (Formerly known as Rane Engineering Ceramic Ltd), Chennai & Another

    S.A. No. 1383 of 2007 & M.P. No. 2 of 2007

    Decided On, 20 July 2021

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE

    For the Appellants: Rathina Asohan, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, M.S. Murali for M/s. R.P. Partners.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C. against the Judgment and Decree of the learned VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai passed in A.S.No.312 of 2002 dated 20.07.2004 confirming the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned I Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.8642 of 1989 dated 15.09.2000.)

1. This second appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below.

2. The Appellants are the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit O.S.No.8642 of 1989 on the file of the First Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. The Appellants/defendants sold a large extent of land at Perunjeri Village, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District to the first respondent/plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 16.12.1987 as document No.302 of 1988, Sub Registrar Office, Ponneri which was marked as Ex.A8 before the trial court.

3. The case of the first respondent/plaintiff is that along with other lands, poromboke land measuring an extent of 82 cents were also sold fraudulently by the Appellants/defendants 1 & 2 in their favour under the aforementioned sale deed (Ex.A8). Hence, the suit filed by the first respondent/plaintiff seeking recovery of the value of the land measuring 82 cents from the Appellants/defendants in O.S.No.8642 of 1989 on the file of the First Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. The Appellants/defendants 1 & 2 have also filed their written statement in the said suit and denied the allegations of the first respondent/plaintiff.

4. By Judgment and Decree dated 15.09.2000, the suit O.S.No.8642 of 1989 was decreed in favour of the first respondent/plaintiff directing the Appellants/defendants to pay a sum of Rs.99,999/- together with interest at 18% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation and also imposed costs. Aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated 15.09.2000 passed in O.S.No.8642 of 1989, the Appellants/defendants 1 & 2 preferred a first appeal before the 7th Additional City Civil Court, Chennai in A.S.No.312 of 2002. The lower appellate court confirmed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal filed by the Appellants/defendants 1 & 2 by its judgment and decree dated 20.07.2004 in A.S.No.312 of 2002. Both the trial court as well as the lower appellate court has rejected the contentions of the Appellants/defendants 1 & 2.

5. This Court had admitted the second appeal on 16.07.2009 on the following substantial questions of law:

“1) Whether the findings of the courts below that the 2nd appellant/defendant-2 is also liable for the alleged loss sustained bythe 1st respondent/plaintiff in respect of S.No.21 for which she is not having any title over the said property, is legally sustainable?

2) Whether the findings of the court below that the Appellants/Defendants 1 & 2 suppressed material facts regarding the nature of the land conveyed to 1st respondent/plaintiff under Exhibits A-8 in respect of S.No.21 is legally sustainable, since the nature of the said land is clearly described in the Exhibit A-2 as “lake poromboke”?

3) Whether the courts below are justified in not applying the settled doctrine “buyer beware”?

4) Whether the joint execution of Exhibit A-8 by the Appellants as desired by the 1st Respondent would bind on the parties when one of them does not have title or right over other's property?”

6. Before the trial court, the first respondent/plaintiff has been able to prove their case through Chitta extract which has been marked as Ex.A5 that the land measuring an extent of 82 cents in S.No.21 at Perunjeri Village, Ponneri Taluk, Thiruvallur District which was conveyed to them by the Appellants/defendants 1 & 2 under the aforementioned sale deed (Ex.A8) is a poromboke land i.e, the land belongs to the Government.

7. As seen from the evidence available on record, the Appellants/defendants 1 & 2 have also not been able to disprove the clinching evidence produced by the first respondent/plaintiff before the trial court to prove that the disputed land is a poromboke land. The first respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.99,999/- together with interest and costs being the value of the poromboke land paid towards the purchase of the aforementioned land. Both the courts below have concurrently held, based on the evidence available on record, that the first respondent/plaintiff has been able to prove that the disputed land conveyed to them is a poromboke land and therefore, they are entitled for the suit claim.

8. The substantial questions of law formulated by this Court at the time of admission of this second appeal are answered against the Appellants/defendants 1 & 2 as the first respondent/plaintiff has been able to prove their case as seen from the evidence available on record that they have been deceived by the Appellants/defendants 1 & 2 that the land measuring 82 cents which is the subject matter of the suit is a patta land and the Appellants/defendants 1 & 2 were having the title over the same, but in fact, the said land is a poromboke land. The first respondent/plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the sale consideration paid by them towards purchase of poromboke land measuring 82 cents. Both the courts below have

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

rightly considered the evidence available on record and only thereafter has decreed the suit in favour of the first respondent/plaintiff. 9. The issues raised by the Appellants are factual issues which have been adequately and correctly considered by the courts below and there are no debatable issues involved in this second appeal and there is absolutely no merit in the same. 10. For the foregoing reasons, this second appeal is dismissed with costs. Accordingly, the findings of the courts below are hereby confirmed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
O R