(Common Prayer: Appeals filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the Judgment and Decree made in AS.Nos.116 & 117/1997 dated 28/07/2003 on the file of the Additional District cum Fast Track Court, Ramanathapuram, confirming the Judgment and Decree made in OS.Nos. 280/2003 and 312 of 1983 dated 18/10/1996, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Ramanathapuram.)

Common Judgment:

The plaintiffs are the appellants in these appeals.

2. The case of the plaintiffs is that there were two items of suit property, namely, D.Nos.57 and 58 at Ward No.13 and the same were purchased by the plaintiffs through registered sale deed dated 25.11.1952 (Ex.A1) from Mohammed Ameena Ummal. The vendor of the plaintiffs, namely, Ameena Ummal purchased the property through a registered sale deed dated 21.11.1952 (Ex.A2) from Syed Mohideen. The plaintiffs permitted the said Mohammed Ameena to continue to reside in the said property on the undertaking that she will vacate and hand over possession at a later point of time. Even after her demise, the first and 2nd defendants continue to possess and enjoy the property on the permission given by the plaintiffs. While so, attempts were made by the 1st and 2nd defendants to demolish and put up a new construction and hence, the plaintiffs revoked the license and issued a legal notice calling upon the first and 2nd defendants to vacate and hand over vacant possession of the property. There was no response from the defendants and hence, suit came to be filed in OS No.280 of 1983 seeking for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants not to alter the suit property.

3. The defendants continue to claim exclusive right over the suit property and refused to hand over possession of the property and hence, OS No.312 of 1983 was filed seeking for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession.

4. The defendants took a stand that the suit property and the property which is adjacent on the southern side originally belonged to Naina Mohammed. He had four sisters, six daughters and three sons. One of the daughter was Mohammed Ameena. The said Naina Mohammed gifted a small portion in the suit property and Mohammed Ameena in turn orally gifted that small portion to her daughter Mohammed Asa at the time of marriage. After her demise, her legal heirs through a registered sale deed dated 13.01.1982 (Ex.B1) sold the property in favour of the 3rd defendant. This pertains to D.No.57. Insofar as D.No.58 is concerned, the male heirs executed a settlement deed dated 11.10.1983 (Ex.B4) in favour of the 2nd defendant. The further case of the defendants is that the plaintiff did not have any exclusive right over the suit property and therefore, the relief as sought for in the suit cannot be granted and both the suits are liable to be dismissed.

5. The trial Court, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, came to a conclusion that the plaintiff has not established the title over the suit property and that at no point of time, the plaintiff was ever in possession of the suit property and accordingly, by judgment and decree dated 08.10.1996 both the suits came to be dismissed.

6. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff filed two appeals in AS Nos.116 and 117 of 1997, which were dealt with by the Additional District (Fast Track Court) Ramanathapuram and the appellate Court, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on considering the grounds raised in the appeal, confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed both the appeals through judgment and decree dated 28.06.2003. Aggrieved by the same, these second appeals have been filed before this Court.

7. After serving of notice, these second appeals came up for hearing on 05.06.2026 and upon hearing both sides, the following substantial question of law was framed by this Court:

                   “(1) Whether the Court below is right in denying the relief of recovery of possession when the plaintiff proved the title through Ex.A1 and the defendants failed to establish their title or prove adverse possession?”

8. Heard the learned counsel on either side.

9. The main ground that was urged by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the title to the suit property borne out by Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 and the first and 2nd defendants were only permissive occupants and in spite of the same, both the Courts went wrong in holding that the appellants did not explain how their predecessor in title got title for D.No.58 when under Ex.A2 what was purchased was only D.No.57.

10. It is submitted that insofar as D.No.58 is concerned, the plaintiff's vendor was in possession and enjoyment of the same, since it belonged to her ancestrally and thereby the title was proved.

11. The main ground that was urged on the side of the respondents is that there was absolutely no proof for claiming title over D.No.58 and insofar as D.No.57 is concerned, Ex,A1 is a fraudulent document since the vendor had purchased the property hardly four days before the execution of Ex.A1 and there is no proof of title of the vendor in the document marked as Ex.A2. It is submitted that both the Courts have appreciated the evidence and rendered factual findings. Hence, no substantial question of law is involved in these appeals and both the appeals are liable to be dismissed.

12. This Court considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record and also carefully went through the judgment passed by both the Courts below.

13. The subject property in these second appeals are D.Nos.57 and 58. The trial Court took into consideration the fact that insofar as D.No. 57 is concerned, from the year 1934, the demand register extract shows that it stood in the name of Nethi Naina Mohammed. The said Door number was orally gifted to Mohammed Ameena. While so, there is absolutely no explanation as to how the said Mohammed Ameena purchased D.No.57 from one Syed Mohideen on 21.11.1952. Thus, there was no tracing of title for D.No.57. The trial Court also took into consideration the fact that on the date of the so called registration of the sale deed (Ex.A2), the stamp papers were purchased for selling the same property to the plaintiff through Ex.A1 and there was no explanation forthcoming as to how both the sale transactions were even contemplated on the same day. Apart from that, at no point of time, the said Mohammed Ameena was in possession and enjoyment of the said property and it was always in the possession and enjoyment of the defendants. However, when Ex.A1 was executed by Mohammed Ameena in favour of the plaintiff, both D.Nos.57 and 58 were sold. Insofar as D.No.58 is concerned, it was not established as to how Mohammed Ameena is the exclusive owner of the property. Apart from that the possession was also not with Mohammed Ameena.

14. Thus, the trial Court found that the title to D.Nos.57 and 58 were not established by the plaintiff and the predecessor in title and at no point of time, even the predecessor in title was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and therefore, the trial Court came to a conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief sought for and dismissed both the suits.

15. The appellate Court once again appreciated the evidence. Apart from reiterating all the findings of the trial Court with respect to Ex.A1 and A2, which was relied upon by the plaintiff, the appellate Court also took into consideration the documents that were relied upon by the defendants. In that process, it was found that insofar as D.No.58 is concerned, it always stood in the name of Naina Mohammed for which Ex.B2 was relied upon. His three sons ultimately settled the property in favour of second defendant under Ex.B4. Insofar as D.No.57 is concerned, Syed Mohideen was the owner and he sold the property in favour of the third defendant under Ex.B1. The appellate Court also found that at no point of time, the predecessor in title of the plaintiff was ever in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Therefore,the theory of the plaintiff's that the defendants were in possession and enjoyment of the property by way of a license was found unsustainable. The appellate Court therefore dismissed the appeal.

16. In the considered view of this Court, the above findings rendered by both the Courts below was based on appreciation of evidence. The plaintiff failed to establish the right and title over the suit property and this Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 C.P.C., cannot re-appreciate the evidence and what must be seen is whether any substantial question of law is involved in the case.

17. This Court holds that the plaintiff has not proved the title through Ex.A1 and the finding rendered by both the Courts below in this regard does not warrant the interference of this Court. The substantial question of law framed by this Court is answered accordingly and both the second appeals stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.