Kallanai Ambalam vs R.R. Muniyandi and Others

A. Selvam, J.—The concurrent judgments passed in Original Suit No. 509 of 1995 by the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul and in Appeal Suit No. 412 of 2004 by the Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul are now under challenge.

The appellant herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No. 509 of 1995 on the file of the trial Court for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction, wherein one deceased Nallammal and the present respondents have been shown as defendants.

It is averred in the plaint that the husband of the first defendant by name Ramasamy Ambalam is the paternal uncle of the plaintiff and the first defendant is the first wife of the Ramasamy Ambalam. The defendants 2 & 7 are the sons of the first defendant. The 3rd defendant is the wife of the 2nd defendant and the defendants 4 to 6 are their children. The 8th defendant is the wife of 7th defendant. The plaintiff and his deceased mother by name Papathi @ Karuppayee have jointly instituted Original Suit No. 169 of 1964 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Madurai, against the said Ramasamy Ambalam, the present defendants 1, 2 & 7 and others for the reliefs of partition and separate possession of their share in the joint family properties. After making hot contest, a preliminary decree has been passed on 31.02.1967 and in pursuance of the preliminary decree, the plaintiff and his mother have filed I.A. No. 21 of 1967 and a final decree has been passed and subsequently the plaintiff and his mother have obtained possession of the suit properties as per the order passed in Execution Petition No. 42 of 1971 and since then the plaintiff and his mother are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The mother of the plaintiff has passed away, leaving behind the plaintiff as her sole legal heir. The plaintiff as owner of the suit properties, have created mortgages in favour of third parties and subsequently redeemed the same. The paternal uncle of the plaintiff viz., Ramasamy Ambalam and the defendants 1, 2, 7 & 8 are not having any semblance of right over the suit properties and they demanded the plaintiff to sell the suit properties. Since the plaintiff has refused to concede their demand, they expressed their antagonistic attitude and the plaintiff has filed Original Suit No. 12 of 1979 on the file of the District Court, Madurai for the relief of permanent injunction. The defendants therein have filed a memo on 06.08.1979 and thereby admitted the title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit properties and on the basis of the memo filed by them, Original Suit No. 12 of 1979 has been closed. The paternal uncle of the plaintiff viz., Ramasamy Ambalam has passed away leaving behind his two wives viz., Nallammal and Vellaiammal and now the defendants are making arrangements to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit properties by way of denying his title and under the said circumstances, the present suit has been instituted for the reliefs sought for in the plaint.

It is averred in the written statement filed by the defendants 1 to 8 that the defendants have not known about the earlier legal proceedings. In Survey No. 283/7, Ramamsamy Ambalam has enjoyed 6.67 acres. On 24.04.1965 in respect of three acres, he executed a settlement deed in favour of Nallammal and on 29.04.1965 in respect of 3.67 acres, he executed another settlement deed in favour of his another wife viz., Vellaiammal. It is false to say that the plaintiff has obtained possession of the suit properties. On 30.05.1971 a mortgage deed has been executed in favour of Nahoor Pitchai and Sikkandar. On the same day, the first defendant has also executed another mortgage deed in favour of the said Nahoor Pitchai and Sikkandar and further various lease deeds have also been created in respect of the trees, standing in suit survey numbers and further it is false to say that a memo has been filed by the defendants found in Original Suit No. 12 of 1979. The plaintiff is not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the plaint and therefore, the present suit deserves dismissal.

In the additional written statement filed by the second defendant, it is stated that the suit first item has been purchased by one Raman Ambalam under a registered sale deed dated 14.09.1929. The said Raman Ambalam has passed away leaving behind him, the father of the second defendant, father of the plaintiff, Iyyan (Poochi) and Karanthamalai. The plaintiff is not entitled to get the reliefs in respect of the suit items 1 & 2. The father of the second defendant has enjoyed the suit properties and created settlement deeds, mortgage deeds and lease deeds. There is no merit in the suit and the same deserves dismissal.

In the written statement filed on the side of the 9th defendant, it is stated that the suit survey numbers have been subsequently subdivided and the 9th defendant is an unnecessary party and therefore, the present suit deserves dismissal as against the 9th defendant.

On the basis of the claims and counterclaims, the trial Court has framed necessary issues and after analysing both the oral and documentary evidence, has dismissed the suit in respect of (Old Survey No. 283/7) New Survey Nos. 283/7A, measuring 1.50 acres and (Old Survey No. 283/6) New Survey No. 283/6A, measuring 0.40 acres and decreed the suit in respect of other items of the suit properties. Against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff as appellant has preferred Appeal Suit No. 412 of 2004 on the file of the first appellate Court. The first appellate Court, after hearing both sides and after reappraising the evidence available on record, has dismissed the appeal and thereby confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Against the concurrent judgments, the present second appeal has been filed at the instance of the plaintiff as appellant.

On the side of the appellant/plaintiff, the following substantial questions of law have been raised for consideration;

a) Whether the Courts below are right in rejecting the case of the plaintiff/appellant as to his title, interest and enjoyment over the suit property despite the candid admission by the defendants/respondents in O.S. No. 169 of 1964 and more so the defendant/respondent is estopped by the doctrine of estoppel envisaged u/s 115 of the Evidence Act?

b) Whether the Courts below are right in dismissing the suit in so far as item 2 & 4 concerned dehors the delivery effected under Ex.A3 in E.P. No. 42 of 1971 in O.S. No. 169 of 1964 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Madurai?

c) Whether the Courts below are right in rejecting the memo (Ex.A8) filed by the respondents/defendants in O.S. No. 12 of 1979 on the file of the District Court, Madurai, submitting the decree in a suit for permanent injunction filed by the appellant in respect of the suit property?

As agreed by the learned Counsel appearing for both sides, the present second appeal is disposed of on merits at the stage of admission.

Before perpending the rival submissions made by either Counsel, the Court has to perorate the earlier legal proceedings.

It is an admitted fact that the mother of the plaintiff and plaintiff have jointly instituted Original Suit No. 169 of 1964 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Madurai for the reliefs of partition and separate possession and the same has been decreed as prayed for and in pursuance of the preliminary decree passed in Original Suit No. 169 of 1964, a final decree has been passed as per the order passed in I.A.No.21 of 1967 and the plaintiff and his mother have filed Execution Petition No. 42 of 1971 in Original Suit No. 169 of 1964 and the suit properties have been delivered to the plaintiff and his mother.

The judgment passed in Original Suit No. 169 of 1964 has been marked as Ex.A1 and the final decree passed therein has been marked as Ex.A2 and delivery Athatchi and amin''s return have been marked as Ex.A3. In Original Suit No. 169 of 1964 on the side of the contesting defendants, it has been stated that the paternal uncle of the present plaintiff has executed settlement deeds in favour of his wives and to that effect necessary issues have been framed and ultimately decided against the contesting defendants. In Original Suit No. 169 of 1964, the suit property has been allotted to the share of the plaintiff and his mother and subsequently they have taken possession of the same. After taking possession, some of the defendants herein have tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and he has filed Original Suit No. 12 of 1979 for the relief of perpetual injunction on the file of the District Court, Madurai, wherein the defendants therein have filed a memo stating that the present plaintiff has obtained possession of the suit properties in pursuance of judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No. 169 of 1964 and further it is stated that the defendants would not disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. The memo filed in Original Suit No. 12 of 1979 has been marked as Ex.A7 and the decree passed in Original Suit No. 12 of 1979 has been marked as Ex.A8.

It is an admitted fact that the present suit has been instituted in respect of the properties which have been allotted to the share of the plaintiff and his mother in Original Suit No. 169 of 1964 for the reliefs of declaration and perpetual injunction. As stated earlier, the trial Court has decreed the suit except 1.50 acres in the suit second item (Old Survey No. 283/7 and New Survey No. 283/7A) and 0.40 acres which has been stated as suit fourth item (Old Survey No. 283/6 and New Survey No. 283/6A). The first appellate Court has simply affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court.

The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff has repeatedly contended that all the suit properties have been allotted to the share of the plaintiff and his mother in Original Suit No. 169 of 1964 and the plaintiff and his mother have taken possession of the same through Court and the mother of the plaintiff has passed away leaving behind the plaintiff as her sold legal heir and after her demise, the plaintiff has been enjoying all the suit properties and since some of the defendants have tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment, he has filed Original Suit No. 12 of 1979 for the relief of perpetual injunction, wherein the defendants therein have filed a memo admitting the possession of the plaintiff and also given assurance not to make interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff over the suit properties and now the defendants have attempted to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff by way of denying his title and under the said circumstances, the present suit has been instituted for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction, but the Courts below have erroneously come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of 1.50 acres in Old Survey No. 283/7 (2nd item) and 0.40 acres in Old Survey No. 283/6 (4th item) and on the side of the plaintiff voluminous documents have been filed so as to prove the possession and enjoyment of all the suit properties and therefore, the concurrent judgments passed by the Courts below are liable to be set aside in respect of disallowed portion.

In order to repudiate the argument advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants has also equally contended that in pursuance of the preliminary decree and final decree passed in Original Suit No. 169/1964, the plaintiff and his mother have not taken possession of 1.50 acres in Old Survey No. 283/7 and 0.40 acres in Old Survey No. 283/6 and further the deceased Ramasamy Ambalam has executed settlement deeds in favour of his two wives in respect of the said survey numbers and subsequently various mortgage deeds and lease deeds have been created and on the basis of the documents filed on the side of the defendants, the Courts below have concurrently found that the plaintiff is not entitled to get the reliefs sought for in the plaint in respect of 1.50 acres in Old Survey No. 283/7 and 0.40 acres in Old Survey No. 283/6 and there is no inkling nor vantage to make interference with the concurrent findings of the Courts below with regard to disallowed portion and therefore, the argument advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff is sans merit and further the substantial questions of law raised on the side of the appellant/plaintiff are not at all sustainable and therefore, the present second appeal deserves dismissal at the stage of admission.

On the basis of the rival submissions made by either Counsel, the Court has to perpend as to whether the appellant/plaintiff is having title and possession to 1.50 acres in Old Survey No. 283/7 and 0.40 acres in Old Survey No. 283/6.

It has already been pointed out that in Original Suit No. 169 of 1994 all the suit properties have been allotted to the share of the plaintiff and his mother and the plaintiff and his mother have taken delivery of all the suit properties under Ex.A3. Therefore, it is quite clear that in pursuance of the preliminary decree and final decree passed in Original Suit No. 169 of 1964 the appellant/plaintiff has derived valid title and also possession in respect of all the suit properties. Ex.A4 is a kist receipt which stands in the name of the plaintiff in respect of Survey Nos. 283/5, 6A, 7A and 3A. Ex.A5 is a patta granted in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit survey numbers. Ex.A6 series are kist receipts which stand in the name of the plaintiff. Ex.A9 is a chitta which stands in the name of the plaintiff, wherein also Old Survey Nos. 283/7 and 283/6 are found place. Ex.A10 is an adangal extract for the fasili year 1403, wherein also it has been specifically mentioned that New Survey Nos. 283/6A & 7A are in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. Exs.A11 to A14 are all lease deeds executed by the plaintiff in respect of the coconut trees which are standing in Old Survey Nos. 283/7 and 283/6.

At this juncture, it would be more useful to look into Exs.A7 & A8. Ex.A7 is a memo filed in Original Suit No. 12 of 1979 and the said suit has been instituted by the present plaintiff for the relief of perpetual injunction against some of the present defendants. From the close reading of Ex.A7, the Court can easily discern that the defendants therein have clearly admitted the title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit properties and they have also given assurance not to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. Ex.A8 is a certified copy of the decree passed in Original Suit No. 12 of 1979.

The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants has unnecessarily made a comment that the appellant/plaintiff is a fraudulent person and he has fraudulently filed a memo in Original Suit No. 12 of 1979 and the defendants therein have not signed the same and therefore, no credence could be attached to it.

As stated earlier, this Court has closely perused Ex.A7, wherein the plaintiff and defendants therein have put their signatures and the respective Counsel have also put their signatures. Since the Counsel of the defendants therein has also put his signature in Ex.A7, the Court cannot belittle the same. On the basis of Ex.A7 also the Court can unflinchingly come to a conclusion that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

The Courts below have not considered the documents referred to supra properly. But, the Courts below have given much importance to exhibits filed on the side of the defendants. In fact, this Court has closely perused all the exhibits filed on the side of the defendants, wherein it is found that some lease deeds and mortgage deeds have been created by some of the defendants. Further the said Ramamsamy Ambalam has executed a settlement deed in favour of his wife viz., Nallammal and others under Ex.B6. It has already been pointed out that the settlement deeds alleged to have been executed by the said Ramasamy Ambalam have already been dealt with in Original Suit No. 169 of 1964 and ultimately found that the same are not binding upon the shares of the plaintiff and his mother. Simply because some of the defendants have created lease deeds as well as mortgage deeds in respect of the suit survey numbers, the Court cannot reject the vital documents filed on the side of the plaintiff viz., Exs.A2 to A5 and A7 to A10. If really the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the Old Survey Nos. 283/7, measuring 1.50 acres and 283/6 measuring 0.40 acres, definitely, their names would have found place in adangal extract, but no such adangal extract has been marked on the side of the defendants. Therefore, the Court can safely come to a conclusion that in Old Survey Nos. 283/7 measuring 1.50 acres and 283/6 measuring 0.40 acres, the defendants are not having possession and enjoyment.

It has already been pointed out that all the suit properties have been allotted to the share of the plaintiff and his mother in Original Suit No. 169 of 1964 and the same have also been delivered through the process of Court and the process of the Court cannot be taken as an empty formality. Therefore, it is quite clear that the plaintiff has clearly established his title to the suit properties as well as his possession.

The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff has befittingly drawn the attention of the Court to the decision reported in 1998 (3) LW 696 (Karaikudi Taluk v. C. Ramiah Pillai) wherein this Court has held as follows;

It has been found by both the Courts below that the first respondent/defendant had not established his possession for over the statutory period entitling him to claim title by adverse possession. If it is found that the appellant had title to the property, then on the basis of the title of the appellant, the respondents will have to be thrown out. Ex.A6 is conclusive as regards the title of the appellant. Admittedly, in the earlier proceedings the appellant had taken possession of the suit property in execution. Unless it was pleaded and proved that in the earlier execution proceedings the appellant took possession of the suit property by practice of fraud, the factum of the appellant having taken possession should stand. The approach of the lower appellate Court in rejecting the evidence afforded by Exs.A1 to A4 is clearly erroneous.

In the instant case, as noted down earlier, the plaintiff and his mother have obtained possession of the suit properties by virtue of Ex.A3 and further patta for the suit properties stand in the name of the plaintiff under Ex.A5 and the plaintiff has also established his exclusive possession by way of filing Ex.A10. Therefore, it is quite clear that the plaintiff has proved his title and possession in respect of all the suit properties. Under the said circumstances, the respondents/defendants should be summarily thrown out.

The specific contention urged on the side of the respondent/defendant is that no actual delivery has been effected in pursuance of Ex.A3 and the delivery mentioned in Ex.A3 is only a paper delivery and therefore, the plaintiff has not obtained possession of the properties mentioned therein.

In 1991 (1) L.W. 244 (C. Ramasami v. Kuruva Boyan and Ors.) this Court has held that plea on behalf of the appellant that it was only a paper delivery and that actual delivery was not effected, ought not to be accepted. The Court cannot ignore evidence afforded by Court officials and bailiffs endorsement in the absence of a definite and specific plea of fraud.

In Shew Bux Mohata and Others Vs. Bengal Breweries Ltd. and Others, wherein the Honourable Apex Court has held as follows;

Under Order 21 Rule 35 a person in possession and bound by the decree has to be removed only if necessary, that is to say, if necessary to give the decree-holder the possession he is entitled to and asks for. But it is open to the decree-holder to accept the delivery of possession under that Rule without actual removal of the person in possession. If he does that, then he cannot later say that he has not been given that possession to which he was entitled under the law. Where the decree-holders of their own accepted delivery of possession with defendant remaining on the premises with their permission, and they granted a receipt acknowledging full delivery of possession, and permitted the execution case to be dismissed on the basis that full possession had been delivered to them by defendant, they are bound to the position that the decree has been fully executed and the decree cannot be executed any more.

From the conjoint reading of all the decisions mentioned supra, it is made clear that delivery recorded by the Court cannot be suspected except definite and specific plea of fraud.

In the instant case, in the written statement filed on the side of the contesting defendants, no specific attack has been made in respect of delivery of possession of all the suit properties in pursuance of the preliminary decree and final decree passed in Original suit No. 169 of 1964. Therefore it is needless to say that the contention urged on the side of the respondents/defendants has no legs to stand.

The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants has accited the following decisions;

a) In Sudhir Jaggi and Another Vs. Sunil Akash Sinha Choudhury and Others, the Honourable Apex Court has held that concurrent findings of fact did not call for interference.

In the said decision, the alleged purchaser has proved his possession. Under the said circumstances, the Honourable Apex Court has held that the concurrent findings with regard to possession did not call for interference.

b) In Uthamaram Nathusam Sait and Others Vs. Hude Gopalakrishnayya, it has been held that Court delivered suit land to appellant only jungle portion not covered by pepper garden. Under the said circumstances, Section 114 of the Evidence Act is not applicable to pepper garden.

In the instant case, as stated in many places, in Original Suit No. 169 of 1964, the Court has delivered all the suit properties and therefore, the facts of the present case are not identical to the facts of the case mentioned in the decision referred to above.

c) In P. Srinivasan Vs. Suseelabai and Others, this Court has held that PW1 has clearly admitted that the defendants are not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and therefore, there is no basis for contending that Ex.B1 is sham and nominal.

In the instant case, no such circumstances have arisen and therefore, the same cannot be attuned in the present case.

d) In Dharmala Kamayya Vs. Bhimarasettei Paridesi and Another, this Court has held that the defendant therein have clearly established their possession for more than 12 years and therefore, the claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation.

In the present case, the defendants have not established their possession of the suit properties, whereas the plaintiff has clearly established his possession. Therefore, the decision referred to above is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

e) In Nagoor Rowther Vs. Abdul Rahim, this Court has held that fact of actual delivery of possession cannot be established by producing a certified copy of delivery warrant.

Even assuming without conceding that Ex.A3 is not an authenticated document so as to prove the possession of the suit properties, the plaintiff has filed Ex.A10, Adangal extract for the fasili year 1403 wherein it has been clinchingly stated that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Therefore, the facts found in the decision referred to supra, are not suitable to the facts of the present case.

f) In Manickam Vs. Sakunthala @ Rajeswari and Others, this Court has held that High Court cannot reappreciate evidence and come to different conclusion that the first appellate Court has not misread any material evidence, overlooked the material evidence or its findings are perverse.

In the case on hand, the plaintiff has established his title and possession of the suit properties by way of filing enormous documents. The Courts below have failed to give proper attention to all the exhibits filed on the side of the plaintiff, especially Ex.A10. Therefore, this Court can easily come to a conclusion that the Courts below have over looked the material evidence available on the side of the plaintiff. Under the said circumstances, the decision mentioned supra, cannot be attuned in the present case.

g) In Navaneethammal Vs. Arjuna Chetty, the Honourable Apex Court has held as follows;

Interference with the concurrent findings of the Courts below by the High Court u/s 100 of the CPC must be avoided unless warranted by compelling reasons. In any case, the High Court is not expected to reappreciate the evidence just to replace the findings of the lower Courts. In the present case the lower appellate Court fairly appreciated the evidence and confirmed the conclusion of the trial Court that suit was not barred by limitation. Even assuming that another view is possible on a reappreciation of the same evidence, that should not have been done by the High Court as it cannot be said that the view taken by the first appellate Court was based on no material.

In the case on hand, as stated in many places, the Courts below have not at all given much importance to the vital documents filed on the side of the plaintiff. Even at the risk of jarring repetition, the Court would like to state that the plaintiff has clearly established his title and possession of all the suit properties by way of filing relevant revenue documents and the Courts below have not at all considered the same. As per the dictum given by the Honourable Apex Court, the concurrent findings can be interfered with by compelling reasons. In the instant case, the concurrent findings given by the Courts below with regard to possession of properties found in the present appeal are perverse and both the Courts below have failed to look into the documents filed on the side of the appellant/plaintiff and further at any stage justice can be done and also established. In the present case, the plaintiff has clearly established his title as well as possession. Therefore, this Court is having ample power in the present case to make interference with the concurrent findings of the Courts below with regard to possession of the properties found in the present appeal.

h) In Kondiba Dagadu Kadam Vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar and Others, the Honourable Apex Court has held that relief cannot be granted merely on equitable grounds against the concurrent findings of fact howsoever erroneous.

As pointed out in many places, in the instant case, the Courts below have not at all considered the vital documents filed on the side of the appellant/plaintiff and in fact, the Courts below have partly accepted the claim of the plaintiff and partly rejected it. The entire case of the plaintiff is based upon the preliminary decree and final decree passed in Original Suit No. 169 of 1964. The plaintiff has taken delivery of all the suit properties through the process of Court and the same cannot be discarded merely on the ground that the defendants have created some mortgage and lease deeds. Therefore, viewing from any angle, the decisions accited by the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants are not suitable to the present case.

The substantial questions of law raised on the side of the appellant/plaintiff are as to whether the Courts below are right in rejecting the title of the plaintiff in respect of the present suit properties against the verdict given in Original Suit No. 169 of 1964 and also against the delivery effected under Ex.A3 in E.P. No. 42 of 1971.

It has already been discussed in detail that in pursuance of the preliminary decree and final decree passed in Original Suit No. 169 of 1964, the plaintiff is having title over the suit properties and the plaintiff has taken delivery of all the suit properties as per order passed in Execution Petition No. 42 of 1971. The Courts below have not considered the title of the plaintiff, which has been recognished in Original Suit No. 169 of 1964 and delivery of possession given in Execution Petition No. 42/1971. Therefore, the substantial questions of law raised on the side of the appellant/plaintiff are decided in favour of him.

Before parting with this appeal, the Court would like to assort the following factual aspects;

The plaintiff and his mother have instituted Original Suit No. 169 of 1964 for the relief of partition and separate possession in respect of the suit properties mentioned therein, wherein the paternal uncle of the plaintiff viz., Ramasamy Ambalam has been shown as first defendant and in which his main contention is that he executed two settlement deeds in favour of his wives and necessary issues have been framed and ultimately found that the settlement deeds executed by the first defendant are not binding upon the plaintiffs therein and ultimately Original Suit No. 169 of 1964 has been decreed as prayed for and consequently a final decree has been passed in Ex.A2. In pursuance of final decree, the plaintiff has taken delivery of all the suit properties under Ex.A3. In the year 1979, some of the defendants herein have tried to obstruct the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff which paved the way for instituting Original Suit No. 12 of 1979 for the relief of perpetual injunction and the same has also been closed in view of the memo filed on both sides. The present suit has been instituted in the year 1995. Therefore, it is quite clear for the period of 44 years the present defendant and others have not permitted the plaintiff to enjoy the suit properties peacefully. In the instant case, a fatherless person has been driven from pillar to post and also put into troubles and tribulations for the past 4 decades even though he is having valid title, interest and possession over the suit properties. The main aim of the defendants is to grab the suit properties somehow or other.

In AIR 1994 SCW 243 (S.P. Sengalvarayan Naidu (died) by LRs v. Jegannathan (died) by LRs) the Honourable Apex Court has held that property grabbers, tax evaders, bank loan dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the Court process a convenient lever to retain illegal gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person, whose case based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court and he can summarily be thrown out at any stage of the litigation.

In the present case, the plaintiff has been fighting with the defendants for the past 44 years so as to establish his genuine right, title and interest over the suit properties. The defendants are not allowing the plaintiff to enjoy the suit properties peacefully. As stated earlier, the main aim of the defendants is to grab the suit properties and the defendants are nothing but property grabbers and as per the dictum of the Honourable Apex Court, the defendants must be summarily thrown out since they are property grabbers.

It has already been pointed out in many places that the plaintiff has clearly established his title and possession in respect of all the suit properties and the Courts below have erroneously dismissed the suit in respect of 1.50 acres in Old Survey Nos. 283/7 and 0.40 acres in Old Survey No. 283/6. The concurrent findings of the Courts below are totally against the documents filed on the side of the appellant/plaintiff and therefore, the concurrent findings given by the Courts below with regard to disallowed portion are liable to be set aside and the present second appeal can be allowed at the stage of admission.

In fine, this second appeal is allowed at the stage of admission with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. The judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No. 509 of 1995 by the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul, upheld in Appeal Suit No. 412 of 2004 by the Principal Subordinate Court, Dindigul in respect of disallowed portion are set aside and Original Suit No. 509 of 1995 is decreed as prayed for with costs in toto.