IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:13.3.2009 Coram: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA S.A.No.1665 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008 S.Meenakshi Sundaram ... Appellant/Plaintiff vs. Valliammal ... Respondent/Defendant This second appeal is filed against the judgement and decree dated 11.9.2008 passed in A.S.No.41 of 2008 by the Sub Court,Rasipuram, Namakkal District, confirming the judgement and decree dated 1.10.2004 passed in O.S.No.174 of 1998 by the District Munsif, Rasipuram, Namakkal District. For Appellant : No appearance For Respondent : No appearance JUDGMENT This second appeal is focussed by the original plaintiff, animadverting upon the judgement and decree dated dated 11.9.2008 passed in A.S.No.41 of 2008 by the Sub Court,Rasipuram, Namakkal District, confirming the judgement and decree dated 1.10.2004 passed by the District Munsif, Rasipuram, Namakkal District, in O.S.No.174 of 1998, so as to get declared the plaintiff's title over the suit properties and to restrain the defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by the plaintiff. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status before the trial Court. 2. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and for injunction in respect of his alleged half share in the suit property based on his plea that he purchased the property as per the sale deed dated 08.02.1990 executed by one Saroja, in his favour. 3. Per contra, denying and refuting, remonstrating and gainsaying the claim of the plaintiff, D1 filed the counter that the suit of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ plaintiff was totally untenable, as it was based on fabricated documents. 4. During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1., apart from examining one Periyaswamy as P.W.2 and Exs.A1 to A8 were marked. On the defendant's side, the defendant examined herself as D.W.1 and Ex.B1 was marked. 5. Ultimately the trial Court dismissed the suit, as against which first appeal was filed by the plaintiff, for nothing but to be dismissed. Being disconcerted and aggrieved by the judgments of both the Courts below, this Second Appeal is focussed by the plaintiff on various grounds and also by suggesting the proposed following substantial questions of law: "1.Whether the learned Subordinate Judge was correcth in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant without following the mandatory provisions of law as per O.41 R.31 of C.P.C.as held in the judgment reported in 2008(1) C.T.C.778. 2. Whether the registration is necessary to prove a Will. 3. Whether the learned District Munsif was correct in framing an issue that was not pleaded by the respondent with regard to the genuineness of the Will dated 25.1.1982? 4.Whether the Court could substitutes its own theory to grant a relief with out any pleading by the respondent? 6. Despite printing the names concerned, none appeared. 7. A bare poring over and perusal of the typed set of papers including the certified copies of the judgments of both the Courts below would display and demonstrate that the plaintiff sought to get declared his alleged title to the suit properties based on the sale deed-Ex.A2 dated 8.2.1990, executed by one Saroja in favour of the plaintiff on the strength of Ex.A1-an unregistered Will-dated 25.1.1982, alleged to have been executed by one Pitchamuthu in favour of Saroja. 8. The lower Court correctly observed that absolutely there is no reference to the said Will-Ex.A1 in the plaint. Normally while drafting the plaint, there should be reference to the antecedent title deed to the sale deed, based on which the suit is laid. Even though the present suit was filed based on Ex.-A2-the sale deed dated 8.2.1990, its antecedent deed namely, Ex.A1 was not referred to in the plaint and as such, its absence in the pleadings was correctly commented upon by the lower Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. In the memorandum of second appeal, the plaintiff/appellant tries to raise his accusative finger as against the lower Court for having framed the issue relating to Ex.A1-the Will, forgetting for a moment that the plaintiff himself, as per law, ought to have averred in the plaint about the Will, in addition to praying suo motu the lower Court to frame an issue relating to the validity of the Will. However, the lower Court au fait with law appropriately and correctly, in accordance with Order 14 Rules 3 and 4 of C.P.C. framed, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the issue relating to the validity of the Will because that alone, according to the plaintiff was the bedrock for filing the suit, even though, apparently he might rely upon the sale deed-Ex.A2. At this juncture I would like to extract here under Order 14 Rules 3 and 4 of C.P.C. "3. Materials from which issues may be framed- The Court may frame the issues from all or any of the following materials:- (a) allegations made on oath by the parties, or by any persons present on their behalf, or made by thekl pleaders of such parties; (b) allegations made in the pleadings or in answers to interrogatories delivered in the suit; (c) the contents of documents produced by either party. 4. Court may examine witnesses or documents before framing issues- Where the Court is of opinion that the issues cannot be correctly framed without the examination of some person not before the Court or without the inspection of some document in the suit, it may adjourn the framing of the issues to a day not later than seven days and may (subject to any law for the time being in force) compel the attendance of any person or the production of any document by the person in whose possession or power it is, by summons or other process."(emphasis supplied) 10. A bare perusal of those Rules 3 and 4 and also the other Rules under Order XIV of C.P.C. would unambiguously and unequivocally highlight and spotlight, exemplify and evince that the Court, in the facts and circumstances of a particular case, has got the right to frame necessary issues, which are relevant for the just decision of the case, de hors what the parties have stated and averred in the plaint and written statement. 11. Here Ex.A1 is the Will, which was produced by the plaintiff himself and I am at a loss to understand as to how the plaintiff https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ could challenge and impugne the very framing of the issue relating to the Will. As such, the very approach of the plaintiff in filing the second appeal is fraught with misconception and misgiving in addition to misunderstanding of the law and fact involved in this case. As such, the substantial question of law (iii) as suggested above by the appellant cannot be countenanced and it is totally untenable. 12. The lower Court elaborately dealt with the issue relating to Will and rendered its finding that the plaintiff miserably failed to prove the genuineness of Ex.A1-the Will. The suggested substantial question of law No.(ii) is once again based on misunderstanding of the purport of the judgment of the lower Court, which did not believe the Will solely because it was an unregistered Will, but on the other hand, it dealt with the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and arrived at the conclusion that the very execution and emergence of the Will itself, was fraught with falsity and it was an unbelievable document. The fact remains that the plaintiff came forward with the case as though his vendor Saroja's husband's name as well as her father's name were one and the same, namely, Pitchamuthu. But the trial Court correctly pointed out that the name Saroja, as found in Ex.A1, refers to a lady by name Saroja, wife of Muthugounder, in view of the fact that one of the attesting witnesses to Ex.A1, namely, P.W.2 categorically stated that he is the son of Muthugounder and brother of the beneficiary Saroja under Ex.A1 and in such a case, the plaintiff's vendor Saroja's father cannot be Pitchamuthu. As such, the evidence of P.W.2 goes against the evidence of P.W.1. 13. The lower Court also extracted the relevant portions of the evidence of P.W.1 as well as P.W.2 and correctly highlighted the contradictions and thereby arrived at the conclusion that Ex.A1 is an unbelievable document. 14. The plaintiff forgetting for the moment that the burden of proof is on him to prove the Will strictly in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, had failed to prove the due execution of the Will and the concerned law point has been correctly applied by the lower Court and accordingly decided the lis. 15. Both the Courts below also correctly understood the real controversy and gave its findings that the suit properties originally belonged to Pitchamuthu-the husband of the defendant and he did not execute any Will in favour of the plaintiff's alleged vendor-Saroja and that the plaintiff had not produced any evidence to prove that the defendant's husband Pitchamuthu executed such Will in favour of his alleged vendor Saroja. Put simply, the evidence on plaintiff's side is nothing but a mishmash of artificial and unbelievable versions. 16. The said Saroja-the vendor of the plaintiff was not examined https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ for reasons best known to the plaintiff. Trite, the proposition of law is that the plaintiff has to prove his case, but surprisingly and shockingly, the plaintiff in his case had not chosen to prove his case, but tried to fob off the burden on the defendant artificially and in untenable manner, quite antithetical to the well established principle of law, governing 'burden of proof'. There is absolutely no iota or shard, shred or miniscule extent of evidence to highlight that the plaintiff's vendor-Saroja acquired right over the suit property. 17. En passant, I would like to point out that the very description of the suit property in the plaint and the averments in the plaint are far from satisfactory. There is nothing to indicate and convey as to what was the basis for claiming half share in the undivided joint properties described in the schedule of the plaint. It is also not known as to how injunction consequently could be prayed for such undivided property, which was not divided by metes and bounds into two halves. How there could be a suit for bare declaration without a prayer for partition? There is also no indication in the plaint as in which half portion of the suit larger extent of land, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment, so as to get injunction from the Court. 18. Curiously, in paragraph 4 of the plaint, the plaintiff set out thus: @tHf;F brhj;jpy; gpujpthjpf;F vt;tpj ghj;jpankh mDgtnkh my;yJ vt;tpj chpiknah vf;fhyj;jpYk; ,Ue;jjpy;iy/ gpujpthjp tHf;F brhj;jpy; Ehjd ghj;jpak; bfhz;lhLtjhy; tHf;F brhj;ij bghWj;J tsk;g[if ghpfhuk;nfhhp tHf;F jhf;fy; bra;a ntz;oa[s;sJ/ nkw;go hpbtd;a{ upf;fhh;Lfspy; fle;j 3/9/98 njjpapy; thjp rpl;lh ml';fYf;F tpz;zg;gpj;jnghJ mjpy; gpujpthjp bgah; , Ug;gjhy; thjpapd; tHf;F brhj;jpy; cs;s ghj;jpaj;jpw;F Fe;jfk; Vw;gl;Ls;sJ/ nkYk;. thjp tHf;F brhj;jpy; gpujpthjpf;F ghjp ghfk;ju ntz;Lk; vd;W gpujpthjp thjpia nfl;lnghJk;. fle;j xU khj fhy mstpy; thjpapd; mDgtj;ij gpujpthjp ,il";ry; bra;a Kad;w fhyj;jpYk;. thjp gpujpthjpapd; nghpy; tsk;g[if kw;Wk; epue;ju cWj;Jf;fl;lis ghpfhuj;jpw;F tHf;F jhf;fy; bra;a ntz;oaJ mtrpakhdjha; cs;sJ/ ,y;yhtpoy; thjpapd; mDgtk; kw;Wk; ghj;jpak; bgUj;j ,il";rYf;F cs;shfptpLk;/@ 19. The above excerpt from the plaint would assumingly convey the idea as though the plaintiff sought for half share in the suit property on the ground that the chitta stands in the name of the defendant. No owner of a property would demand for half share in the suit property because erroneously the defendant's name is in the chitta. It is a trite proposition of law that preponderance of probabilities would govern the adjudication in civil cases. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ trial Court, after considering the pro et contra, correctly and appositely arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff's case is a false one. Accordingly, the suggested substantial question of law No.(ii) does not arise at all. 20. The suggested substantial question of law No.(i) would set forth as though the lower Court violated Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C., which is relating to writing of judgement by the first appellate Court. A plain reading of the judgeent of the first appellate Court in no way would show that it violated Order 41 Rule 31 of C.P.C., as the lower Court narrated the facts and also recorded the point for consideration and thereafter rendered its judgment applying its mind on the case before it. Hence, I could see no force in the suggested substantial question of law No.(i) and it does not arise a all. 21. There is nothing to indicate as suggested under the proposed substantial question of law that the Courts below inducted their own theory in deciding the case and such a remark by the appellant is an unkindest act levelled as against the lower Courts. Both the Courts below au courant with facts and applying the correct proposition of law highlighted as to how the plaintiff's case is a false one, warranting no interference with the judgements of the Courts below by this Court. 22. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed confirming the judgement and decree of the court below. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is dismissed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar Msk To 1. The Subordinate Court,Rasipuram, Namakkal District. 2. The District Munsif, Rasipuram, Namakkal District. 1 CC To Mr.P.Valliappan, Advocate, SR NO.7784 S.A.No.1665 of 2008 vsv(co) pmk/24.3.2009. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/