Before The Madurai Bench Of Madras … vs Xavier Francis Fernandes (Died) on 5 June, 2017

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 05.06.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

S.A.(MD)Nos.1358 of 2003 and 1359 of 2003

Judgment reserved on
23.11.2016
Judgment pronounced on
05.06.2017

Anthoniammal @ Pankajam .. Appellant in both S.A.Nos.1358 and 1359 of
2003

Vs.

1.Xavier Francis Fernandes (died)
2.John of Arc Fernandez
3.Lazer Fernandez (died)

4.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by the
Collector Kanyakumari District
At Nagercoil.

5.Josephine
6.Dhanam
7.Rani
8.Babu
9.Jean
10.Sugathan
11.Catherine
12.Jacqueline
13.Pathinathan
14.Rita
15.Dollie
16.Xa vier
17.Josephine
18.Jothy .. Respondents in

S.A.No.1358 of 2003

(Respondents 5 to 13 and respondents 14 to 18 brought
on record as the legal heirs of 1st and 3rd respondents
vide Court order dated 23.08.2016 made in C.M.P.

Nos.6154 to 6156 and C.M.P.Nos.6157 to 6159 of 2016
in S.A.No.1358 of 2003.)

1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. by the
Collector Kanyakumari District
At Nagercoil.

2. The Divisional Engineer
Highways and Rural, Nagercoil.

3.The Block Development Officer
Rajakkamangalam Panchayat Union
Pazhavila. .. Respondents
in
S.A.No.1359 of 2003

PRAYER in S.A.No.1358 of 2003: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C
against the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2002 passed in A.S.No.102 of 2001
on the file of the Principal District Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil,
confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.07.2001 passed in O.S.No.818 of
1987 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil.

PRAYER in S.A.No.1359 of 2003: Second Appeal filed u Section 100 of C.P.C
against the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2002 passed in A.S.No.90 of 2002
on the file of the Principal District Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil,
confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.07.2001 passed in O.S.No.1115 of
1987 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil.

!For Appellant : Ms.N.Krishnaveni

^For RR 2,6,10,11
and 15 to 18 : Mr.T.Arul

For RR1 and 3(died): (steps taken)

For R4 : Mr.C.Selvaraj
Spl. Govt. Pleader

For RR 5,7,8,9,
12 to 14 : No Appearance

:COMMON JUDGMENT

Both the second appeals are arising out of common judgement and decree
dated 31.12.2002 made in A.S.Nos.102 of 2001 and 90 of 2002 on the file of
the Principal District Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, confirming the
judgment and decree dated 26.07.2001 passed in O.S.No.818 of 1987 on the file
of the Additional District Munsif Court, Nagercoil and therefore, both Second
Appeals are disposed of by this common judgment. The appellant, who lost in
both the Courts below, have come out with these second appeals.

2. The appellant in both the second appeals is the plaintiff in
O.S.Nos.818 of 1987 and 1115 of 1987 and appellant in A.S.Nos.102 of 2001 and
90 of 2002. The respondents 1 to 4 in S.A.No.1358 of 2003 are the defendants
in O.S.No.818 of 1987. The respondents 1 to 3 in S.A.No.1359 of 2003 are the
defendants in O.S.No.1115 of 1987.

3. During pendency of the second appeals, respondents 1 and 3 in
S.A.No.1358 of 2003 died. Their legal heirs were impleaded as respondents 5
to 13 and 14 to 18 respectively in S.A.No.1358 of 2003.

S.A.No.1358 of 2003 (O.S.No.818 of 1987):

4. The appellant filed O.S.No.818 of 1987 for permanent injunction
against the respondents 1 to 4 restraining them from interfering with her
peaceful possession over the suit property. According to the appellant, her
father purchased the property by the deeds of sale dated 16.12.1110 M.E.
(1.8.1935) and 06.12.1110 M.E. (22.7.1935) and from his mother, he got right
as per the deed of sale dated 21.07.1093 M.E. (5.3.1928). After their death,
appellant and her brother Marianthony Ericks inherited the property.
Marianthony Ericks is in Gulf country and appellant is in possession of
entire property for herself and on behalf of her brother. During re-survey,
patta was issued for lesser area. The respondents have no right or possession
of the suit property. From 25.07.1987, the respondents attempted to disturb
the possession of the appellant. The respondents and their men attempted to
cut and remove the coconut and other trees in the suit property. By the
intervention of the appellant and her husband, they went back. As a co-owner
of the suit property, the appellant is entitled to maintain the suit for
injunction and get a decree for injunction.

5. The respondents 1 to 3 filed written statement denying all the
averments made in the plaint and submitted that the appellant has no title or
possession of the suit property and the suit property is in possession of the
respondents. The description of the suit property, survey number, area,
boundaries and identity of the properties are wrong and they denied the same.
The sale deeds in favour of the predecessor of appellant are not valid and
they did not get any right or possession. After re-survey, no patta was
issued to the appellant regarding the property in the possession of the
respondents. The old survey numbers and sub-divisions do not pertain to the
property of the appellant. The respondents have patta for suit property and
are paying tax. The re-survey proceedings are valid and binding and it has
become final. The claim of the appellant is barred by law. The property of
the appellant’s father was sold in the Court auction and appellant’s father’s
right was extinguished. The respondents 1 to 3 sold three coconut trees in
the suit property to the village and permitted the village committee to widen
the road through the suit property. The appellant has no prima facie case and
balance of convenience is not in favour of the appellant.

6. The trial Court framed necessary issues. Before the trial Court, the
appellant was examined herself as P.W.1 and one Jerome was examined as P.W.2
and Exs.A1 to A14 were marked. The second respondent himself was examined as
D.W.1 and one Peter Margorious was examined as D.W.2 and Exs.B1 to B15 were
marked.

7. The learned trial Judge considering the pleadings, oral and
documentary evidence, arguments of counsel for parties, decreed the suit by
judgment and decree dated 29.03.1989. Against which, the respondents 1 to 3
filed A.S.No.17 of 1989. The first Appellate Court remanded the matter to
the trial Court to give an opportunity to the appellant to identify the
property as per Exs.A2 to A4 and if necessary, implead Government as party.

8. After remand, the appellant filed an application for amendment to
include the prayer of declaration of title and injunction and impleaded the
Government as fourth defendant.

9. The respondents 1 to 3 filed additional written statement stating
that the appellant is estopped from questioning re-survey proceedings and the
correlation. There is no mistake in re-survey and the appellant did not
question the same within three years. Originally, the appellant claimed 99
cents and she is now claiming 55 cents. The property in the sale deeds under
Exs.A2 to A4 in old S.Nos.14367/4, 14367/5 and 14367/11 are different from
the property claimed in the suit. They are lying far away from each other.

S.A.No.1359 of 2003 (O.S.No.1115 of 1987):

10. The appellant filed O.S.No.1115 of 1987 against the Government
stating that the suit property is a patta land and it is not a Poromboke
land. The respondents in S.A.No.1359 of 2003 have no right over the said
property. The respondents in S.A.No.1359 of 2003 encroached the suit property
and have widened the road on the Eastern and Southern side of the suit
property. The appellant issued notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. to the
respondents on 10.10.1987 and 03.10.1987. The appellant is entitled to
permanent injunction.

11. The respondents filed written statement and stated that the suit
property is not a patta land. The respondents have not encroached the land
belonging to the appellant. The respondents did not widen the road as alleged
by the appellant. If patta land is acquired, the appellant can object to the
same.

12. Based on the amended plaint filed in O.S.No.818 of 1987, after
remand, the trial Court framed issues on 21.10.1997 and 28.07.2001. The trial
Court also framed necessary issues in O.S.No.1115 of 1987. A common trial was
conducted in both the suits. On behalf of the appellant, after remand,
appellant examined herself as P.W.1 and Exs.A15 to A21 were marked. The
second respondent was examined as witness and no additional document was
marked. Advocate Commissioner’s report and plan were marked as Exs.C1 and C2.

13. The trial Court considering the pleadings, oral and documentary
evidence, Commissioner’s report and arguments of the counsel for the parties,
dismissed both the suits holding that the property in re-survey No.1367/4 is
not the property claimed by the appellant as per Exs.A2 to A4 and the claim
of the appellant that re-survey conducted is not proper is barred by
limitation.

14. Against the judgment and decree dated 26.07.2001, the appellant
filed two appeals in A.S.Nos.102 of 2001 and 90 of 2002. The learned first
Appellate Judge framed necessary points for consideration and after
considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, judgment of the
trial Court and arguments of the counsel for the parties, dismissed both the
appeals holding that the appellant failed to prove that the suit property is
the same property as per Exs.A2 to A4. Against the said judgment and decree,
the present second appeals are filed.

15. At the time of admission, following substantial questions of law
were framed:

?(a) In the face of the admission of title in favour of the predecessor
in interest of the plaintiff regarding the suit property and in the absence
of any legal evidence that in a partition that took place earlier the suit
property was allotted to the defendants, whether the conclusion of the Courts
below that the plaintiff had not established his title, is vitiated by law?
In other words, have not the Courts below failed to apply their mind to the
admission made, which is a relevant piece of legal evidence while non-suiting
the Plaintiff?

(b) Whether the non application of mind of the Courts below to the fact
that the plaintiff had in fact filed objections to the Commissioner’s report
as well as took steps to have the warrant re-issued to the same Commissioner
had vitiated these judgments in toto.?

16. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the
appeal in A.S.No.17 of 1989 was remanded by the first Appellate Court by
judgment dated 02.03.1990 with specific direction to identify the suit
property as per Exs.A2 to A4/sale deeds based on which, the appellant claimed
title. Appellant impleaded the Government as fourth defendant and conducted
the suit. The Advocate Commissioner was appointed to identify the suit
property with regard to Exs.A2 to A4. It is further contended that the
appellant gave two memos to the Advocate Commissioner. The Advocate
Commissioner did not act as per the memo of instructions given by the
appellant and did not identify the suit property as per Exs.A2 to A4. Trial
Court as well as the first Appellate Court failed to see that direction given
in the order of remand was not complied with. The appellant filed objection
to the Advocate Commissioner’s report and also filed an application for re-
issue of warrant of commission. The Courts below did not consider the
objection and application filed by the appellant for re-issue of warrant and
erroneously held that the appellant did not file objection to the Advocate
Commissioner’s report and did not file application for re-issue of warrant.
It clearly shows that the non application of mind of the learned Judge. The
Courts below failed to see in the remand order, the first Appellate Court has
categorically held that the respondents in S.A.No.1358 of 2003 are entitled
to only 12 cents. Therefore, he prayed for allowing the second appeals.

17. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the judgment
reported in AIR 1979 MADRAS 173 in (Krishnaswamy Reddiar v. Muthu Reddiar),
wherein in para-8, it is held as follows:

?8. The learned Counsel for the respondent would however contend that
the view taken by the Court of first instance that Kumudavalli lost her
French nationality as a result of her marriage with an Indian national has
rightly been set aside by the Appellate Court by its judgment dated 18th
March, 1971 and that in any event the said finding having become final as a
result of the defendant not having preferred any effective appeal against the
remit order wherein that finding was given, it is no longer open to him to
canvass the correctness of that finding. Mohan, J. has not dealt with this
aspect of the matter. He only dealt with the question as to the form of
marriage. He accepted the finding rendered by the Trial Court that the
marriage was in Brahma form and not in Asura form. On the question of the
form of marriage, we are satisfied on a close scrutiny of evidence that the
marriage was conducted in Brahma form and that if the personal law applicable
to French nationals were to apply. Venkatakrishna Reddiar as the sole heir of
Kumudivalli would succeed to her properties. Thus unless the appellant
succeeds in setting aside the finding given by the appellate Court in the
remand order at the earlier stage that Kumudavalli has not lost her French
nationality as a result of her marriage to Venkatakrishna Reddiar he cannot
succeed to the properties. The question is whether the appellant can question
the said finding rendered by the appellate Court in its remit order at the
earlier stage in this appeal which arises out of the judgment rendered by the
Trial Court after remand. We are of the view that Section 105(2) of the Code
of Civil Procedure will stand in the way of the appellant questioning the
correctness of those findings in this appeal. Section 105(2) of the Code of
Civil Procedure is as follows:

?Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), where any party
aggrieved by an order of remand from which an appeal lies does not appeal
therefrom, he shall thereafter be precluded from disputing its correctness.?
Order 43 Rule 1(u) has provided for an appeal against an order under Rule 23
of Order 41, remanding a case, where an appeal would lie from the decree of
the appellate Court. Therefore the appellant herein should have filed an
appeal against the order of remand passed by the Appellate Court on 18th
March, 1971, if he was aggrieved against the findings rendered in the remit
order. The appellant not having appealed against the said remit order the bar
under Section 105(2) came into operation and the appellant is precluded from
disputing its correctness in the subsequent stages of the same proceedings.
It is well-established that the finality given under Section 105(2) to an
order of remand which is appealable but which has not in fact been appealed
against, will apply to the findings rendered in the order of remand as well.
In this case the remand was based on the finding that Kumudavalli had not
lost her French nationality as a result of her marriage with an Indian
national. That finding has become final. It is not, therefore, open to the
appellant to question that finding in this appeal arising out of the said
order of remand directing a fresh disposal of the suit after giving a finding
on the form of the marriage alone.?

18. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents in S.A.No.1358
of 2003 submitted that the appellant has come out with specific case that the
property covered by Exs.A2 to A4 is the property in re-survey No.1367/4. It
is for the appellant to prove her case. The appellant has taken a
contradictory stand that re-survey was not conducted properly and if proper
re-survey is conducted, it will show that the property covered by Exs.A2 to
A4 are situate in R.S.No.1367/4. The appellant contended that no notice was
issued to her with regard to re-survey. At the same time, appellant admits
that she knew about re-survey, which was done in the year 1965 to 1970. It is
further submitted that the appellant did not challenge the re-survey within
three years of re-survey and get the mistake rectified. In addition to that,
appellant has not given correct description of the property to the schedule
to the plaint. The survey number, extent and boundaries are wrong.

19. The appellant filed the suit only on 30.07.1987 for permanent
injunction in respect of 99 cents. Subsequently, by amendment sought for
declaration of title with regard to 55 cents only. The appellant has stated
that 5 cents of land alone was taken for widening the road. The appellant
also stated that she is not aware of extent of land taken by the Government
for widening of road. The Advocate Commissioner executed warrant of
commission properly and he has measured the property covered by Exs.A2 to A4
with the help of surveyor. The appellant has not proved that the properties
covered by the three sale deeds are lying in one lot. As per the measurement
of the property, the properties are not a single land. The first Appellate
Court, while remanding the suit to the trial Court for fresh trial, has held
that the appellant has to prove her case and cannot succeed on the weakness
of respondents’ case. After remand, the appellant did not take any steps to
identify the property and it is only the respondents 1 to 3, who took steps
for appointment of Advocate Commissioner to identify the property. The Courts
below properly appreciated the facts and all the materials available on
record and have given cogent and valid reasons for dismissing the suits and
first appeals. There is no error on law and there is no substantial questions
of law arising in the second appeals. Therefore, he prayed for dismissal of
the second appeals. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the
following judgments:

(i) Civil Appeal No.562 of 2003, dated 13.05.2011, in (Rangammal v.
Kuppuswami Another), wherein para-11 and 13 are extracted hereunder:

?11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and on a
consideration of their submissions in the light of the judgments and orders
of the courts below, specially the High Court, we are clearly of the view
that the High Court as also the Courts below have clearly misconstrued the
entire case of the plaintiff as well as the respondents and tried it contrary
to the pleadings. The High Court has recorded that ?the present suit which
was filed in the year 1982, is after 31 years? i.e. after 31 years of the
execution of the sale deed dated 24.02.1951. But it can be instantly noticed
that the High Court has fallen into a crystal clear error as it has patently
and unambiguously missed that the suit had not been filed by the appellant
Tmt.Rangammal as she was the 2nd defendant who was later impleaded in the
suit but the partition suit had been filed by the plaintiff-Kuppuswami-
respondent No.1 herein against his brother the 2nd respondent-Andivelu-1st
defendant which was a suit for partition of the property but while doing so
he included and asserted title to the property in the schedule of the plaint
which admittedly had fallen into to the share of the appellant’s deceased-
father which devolved upon her after the death of her father, mother and
brother who died unmarried. But it is the plaintiff/respondent No.1 who came
up with a case in the plaint that this property was transferred for legal
necessity by the so-called legal guardian of the appellant by executing a
sale deed on 24.02.1951 in favour of the respondents predecessors who were
father and uncle of the plaintiff and 1st defendants/respondents herein.

12. .. ..

13. Therefore, it is more than apparent that when the
plaintiff/respondent came up with a case of execution of sale deed on
24.02.1951 for half of the schedule property/disputed property alleged to
have been sold out for legal necessity which had fallen into the share of
appellant Rangammal, the burden clearly lay on the plaintiff/respondent No.1
to discharge that the sale deed executed by Kumara Naicker to his own son and
nephew Arumuga Gounder in regard to the share which had admittedly fallen
into the appellant share Rangammal who was a minor, was sold for the legal
necessity. But this burden by the trial Court was wrongly cast upon the
appellant/Rangammal to discharge, although, it is well-settled that the party
who pleads has also to prove his case.?

(ii) 1992 0 AIR(Mad) 242 in (R.Durairaj v. Seethalakshmiammal and
Others), wherein in para-9, it is held as follows:

?9. .. .. It is the fundamental principle in the law of pleadings that
no amount of evidence can be looked upon in support of a plea having no
foundation in the pleading, and a decision of a case cannot be based on
grounds outside the pleadings. If the first plaintiff had pleaded that she
has spent for the marriage and what amount she has spent and what are the
items of expenses for which she spent, the first defendant would have had an
opportunity to meet this case of her’s by filing a written statement. In this
position only because she has stated in the course of her evidence that she
has spent for the marriage a decree cannot be passed in her favour. The trial
Court itself has found that the first plaintiff as P.W. 1 has not produced
accounts for the marriage expenses incurred by her for the marriage, and she
has not stated what in the quantum of jewels she has given to her daughter.
The lower Court has further found that the first plaintiff (P.W. 1) has
admitted that the marriage was celebrated at the house of the bridegroom and
the expenses of the marriage was borne by the bridegroom. In this state of
evidence the trial Court just stating that taking into consideration the
status of the parties and other circumstances, has granted Rs.20,000/- as the
amount spent for jewels and a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for other marriage expenses.
Thus apart from there being no pleadings, the evidence also is not sufficient
to come to a conclusion that she has spent any definite amount either for
jewels or for other expenses. Thus viewed, the finding of the trial Court
that she has spent Rs. 20,000/- for jewels and Rs. 5,000/- for expenses
cannot be sustained. Here it may be relevant to note that as per S. 20 of the
Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act besides father, mother also is bound to
maintain her daughter.?

20. Learned counsel for the fourth respondent in S.A.No.1358 of 2003
and respondents in S.A.No.1359 of 2003 submitted that the respondents have
not encroached the suit property and did not widen the road as alleged by the
appellant. The Courts below have rightly rejected the claim of the appellant.
In support of his contention, he has relied on the judgment reported in AIR
1982 Orissa 86 in (Rama Subudhi and Others Vs. Bhagirathi and Others),
wherein in para-9, it is held as follows:

?9. The difficulty of the decree-holder however, is on the second
point. The description of the land as given in the plaint, the decree and the
execution petition is quite vague and uncertain. The land is described as
“Plot No. 1108 A. 0.523”. Admittedly, Plot No. 1108 ‘comprises an area of
0.535 acre. The decree directs delivery of possession of a portion of the
land, that is, 0.523 acre. The remaining portion of 0.012 acre was not the
subject matter of the suit. The portion measuring 0.523 acre has not been
specified by boundaries or a sketch map. In the absence of sufficient
particulars, it is difficult to fix up its identity. Order 7, Rule 3 C.P.C.
provides that where the subject matter of the suit is immovable property the
plaint shall contain a description of the property sufficient to identify it
and in case such property can be identified by boundaries or numbers in a
record of settlement or survey, the plaint shall specify such boundaries or
particulars. Order 20, Rule 9, C.P.C. also provides that where the subject-
matter of the suit is immovable property, the decree shall contain a
description of such property sufficient to identify the same. In the present
case, the decree-holder claims delivery of possession in respect of a portion
of the plot. There is however, nothing to show from which side of the plot he
is entitled to take possession. It is difficult to understand why the
executing court appointed a commissioner for demarcation of the land when it
has not been specified in the decree. It is not open to the executing court
to divide the plot and deliver possession of any specific portion. It would
be impossible to demarcate and deliver possession of any: specific portion
unless its identity is known. Mr. P. C. Misra who appeared for the
respondent-decree-holder in this court when confronted with the situation
could not satisfactorily meet the point.?

21. The learned Special Government Pleader submitted that respondents
in S.A.No.1359 of 2003 did not encroach and widen the road as alleged by
appellant. If the patta land had been taken over for laying road, the
appellant ought to have made a claim for compensation.

22. Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

23. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is
that in the judgment dated 02.03.1990 made in A.S.No.17 of 1989, the first
Appellate Court remanded the suit for fresh trial permitting the appellant to
identify the property as per Exs.A2 to A4, based on which, the appellant
claimed title to the suit property. The appellant gave two memos of
instructions to the Advocate Commissioner to execute warrant of commission.
The Advocate Commissioner ignored the said memos and did not measure the
property based on Exs.A2 to A4. The Advocate Commissioner measured the
property only based on re-survey, which according to the appellant is not
correct.

24. From the Commissioner’s report, it is clear that the Taluk
Inspector of Survey identified the properties in Re-survey Nos.1366/5,
1368/3, 1368/8 and 1368/12. As per the plan prepared with the help of the
Taluk Sub-Inspector of Survey, it is clear that the property in old
S.Nos.14367/4 and 14367/5 are re-numbered as re-survey No.1366/5 and old
S.No.14367/11 is re-numbered as re-survey Nos.1368/3, 1368/8 and 1368/12.

25. From the plan submitted by the Advocate Commissioner, it is seen
that these three properties are not situated in a single lot and it is not
situated in re-survey No.1367/4.

26. The appellant has filed objections to the Advocate Commissioner’s
report. The Advocate Commissioner was examined in Court and was cross-
examined by the counsel for the appellant. The appellant has not produced any
document to show that the properties covered by Exs.A2 to A4 are in fact
situate in re-survey No.1367/4. The appellant alleges that re-survey was not
properly conducted and re-survey numbers given are not correct. She also
contends that if proper re-survey is conducted, it will be found that the
properties covered by Exs.A2 to A4 are situate only in re-survey No.1367/4.
The appellant admits that she was aware of re-survey. She also admits that
re-survey was conducted long back and patta was issued for lesser extent
after re-survey. There is nothing on record to show that the appellant has
taken any steps to rectify the defects in re-survey. Admittedly, re-survey
was done in the year 1965 to 1970 and the appellant filed the suit on
30.07.1987. Even in the suit, appellant has not challenged the re-survey
proceedings. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the
Courts below erred in holding that the appellant has not filed any objections
to the Commissioner’s report and has not filed an application for re-issue of
warrant and thereby entire judgment is vitiated has no force. The report of
the Advocate Commissioner is only to assist the Court. The Court can take
into consideration the report of the Advocate Commissioner and come to the
conclusion and decide the issue in the suit or reject the Advocate
Commissioner’s report.

27. The appellant has come out with the specific case that the property
covered by Exs.A2 to A4 measuring 99 cents are situate in single lot and it
is in re-survey No.1367/4. The appellant has failed to substantiate her case
by any acceptable evidence. From the evidence of P.W.2, it is clear that the
boundaries given to schedule to the plaint are not correct. The appellant is
unable to state how much land was taken by the Government for widening of the
road. The respondents have produced the extract of land survey register, re-
survey plan in respect of re-survey No.1367 and kisth receipts.

28. In view of the above fact, I hold that there is no error of law in
the judgment passed by both the Courts below. The appellant having failed to
substantiate her case the properties covered by Exs.A2 to A4 are properties
in Re-survey No.1367/4 is not entitled to take advantage of admission of
respondents that predecessor in title of appellant had right over the
properties covered by Exs.A2 to A4. The substantial questions of law are
answered against the appellant. The decrees and judgments passed by both the
Courts below do not warrant any interference and the same are hereby
confirmed. The second appeals are liable to be dismissed and they are hereby
dismissed.

29. In the result,
Second Appeals are dismissed. The decrees and judgments passed by both the
Courts below are hereby confirmed.

There is no order as to costs.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

To

1.The District Collector,
Kanyakumari District,
At Nagercoil.

2.The Divisional Engineer,
Highways and Rural Nagercoil.

3.The Block Development Officer,
Rajakkamangalam Panchayat Union,
Pazhavila..

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *