1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 03.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.RAJASURIA S.A(MD)No.114 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 1.Jainul Arabu 2.Syed Kasim Ali 3.Kousik Ali 4.Syed Ibrahim ... Appellants 1 to 4/Appellants 1 to 4/Plaintiffs 2 to 5 5.Yasmin Banu 6.Parveen Banu .. Appellants 5 & 6/Appellants 6 & 7/Plaintiffs 7 & 8 Vs. 1.Sungunan alias Muthuramalingam 2.Ramasamy ...Respondents 1 & 2/Respondents 1 & 2/Defendants 3.Imran Khan ... 3rd Respondent/5th Appellant/6th Plaintiff Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2010 made in A.S.No.7 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram, in confirming the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2009 made in O.S.No.30 of 2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Paramakudi. For Appellants : Mr.A.Arumugam for Mr.M.Ajmal Khan For Respondents : Mr.R.Murali for R.1 and R.2 No appearance for R.3 J U D G M E N T This second appeal is focussed by the plaintiffs 2 to 5, 7 and 8 animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 05.10.2010 made in A.S.No.7 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram, in confirming the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2009 made in O.S.No.30 of 2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Paramakudi. 2. The parties, for the sake of convenience, are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court. 3. A summation and summarisation, avoiding discursive delineation, of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of the second appeal, would run thus: The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking the relief of declaration of title over the suit property and for injunction relating to it, on the main ground that by virtue of the two sale deeds viz., Exs.A.1 and A.2, the plaintiffs became the absolute owners of the suit property; whereas the defendants without any manner of right are trying to interfere with the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 peaceful possession and enjoyment of it. 4. The defendants filed the written statement resisting the suit. 5. Whereupon the trial Court framed the relevant issues. 6. During trial, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.6 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs. D.W.1 was examined and no documentary evidence was let in on the side of the defendants. 7. Ultimately, the trial Court dismissed the suit, as against which the appeal was filed by the plaintiffs 2 to 5, 7 and 8, for nothing but to be dismissed. 8. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below, the plaintiffs 2 to 5, 7 and 8 have filed the present second appeal on various grounds and also suggesting the following substantial questions of law: "(i) Whether the Courts below are legally right in holding that the plaintiffs are not the owner of entire 9 cents without considering the nature and legal character of the suit property which is a nanja property? (ii) Whether the Courts below are legally right in not considering the Ex.A6 which is a relevant document under Section 13 of Evidence Act? (iii) Whether the interpretation given by the Courts below in respect of the Exs.A1 and A2 without considering the difference between the yard and carpenters cubic feet is legally right and whether the wrong interpretation given by the Courts below has resulted in a legally untenable conclusion? (iv) Whether the suit is for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of a nanja property as per revenue records and when the plaintiffs have produced sale deed, patta and Kist receipts and the defendants have not produced any documents in their favour, whether the findings of the Courts below that the plaintiffs are not owners of the suit property is as a result of rejection of relevant material admissible evidence and whether such a finding is perverse and liable to be set aside under Section 100 of C.P.C? (v) Whether the failure of the Courts below to apply to whether that the time set legal principle that the boundaries will prevail over the measurements has vitiated the judgments of the Courts below? (vi) Whether the Courts below have considered the question of adverse possession as per the necessary legal requirements?" (extracted as such) 9. At the outset itself, I would like to fumigate my mind with the following decisions of the Honourable Apex Court: (i) Hero Vinoth (Minor) v. Seshammal reported in (2006) 5 Supreme Court Cases 545. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 (ii) Kashmir Singh v. Harnam Singh and another reported in 2008 (4) SCALE 300. (iii) State Bank of India and others v. S.N.Goya reported in 2009-1- L.W.1. 10. A plain reading of those precedents would reveal and demonstrate that under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Second Appeal cannot be entertained, unless substantial question of law is involved. 11. Keeping in mind the aforesaid dictum, I heard the arguments advanced on both sides; whereupon I have felt that the following substantial questions of law do arise in this case: "(i) Whether both the Courts below were justified in dismissing the case of the plaintiffs on the sole ground that they did not prove the extent over which they claim title precisely and that too when there is ambiguity in measurements as found specified in Exs.A.1 and A.2 and that the measurements in the patta in favour of the plaintiffs are not borne by any document of title? (ii) Whether there is any perversity or illegality in the judgments and decrees of both the Courts below?" 12. Both the substantial questions of law are taken together for discussion inasmuch as they are inter-linked and interwoven, entwined and intertwined with each other. 13. Shorn of unnecessary details, the indubitable and unassailable or at least the undenied facts would run thus: One Muthu Rowther, the propositus of the plaintiffs purchased the suit properties under two sale deeds - Exs.A.1 and A.2 and the relevant portions of them would run thus: Schedule in Ex.A.1: brhj;J tpguk;: nuhkehjg[uk; o KJFsj;J]h; rg;o Mg;gD]h; fpuhkj;jpy; vdf;Fg; g {h;tPf ghj;jpakhdJk; Kd; xj;jpg;ghj;jpaj;jpd; kPJ jhA;fBs mDgtpj;J tUfpwJkhd epyj;Jf;F khy; Kfa;ajPd; gpr;iruht[j;jh; mDgtpf;fpw bfhy;iyf;F tlf;F bkh.f.gpr;iruht[j;jh; tifawh fpiuak; bgw;wDgtpf;fpw glg;glof;bfhy;iyf;F fhjh; uht[j;jhplk; ehd; xj;jpitj;jpUf;fpw bfhy;iyf;F fpsf;F, kzy;r;bra;f;Fk; mjhtJ vdf;Fk; Mg;gD]h; R.nuhkehjj;BjtDf;Fk; ghj;jpakhd kzy;bra;f;Fk; bjh;f;F vd; tifawh bghJf;fil epyj;Jf;Fk; Bkh;f;F fhjh; tifawhf;fs; glg;go thz; gaph;f;bfhy;iyjhf;F fu fpsBky; jr;RKsk; (25) nUgj;jq;R bjd;tly; jr;RKsk; (13) gjpKZ njpy; gA;fhsp nuhkehjj;Bjtd; ghfk; ep& vd;ghfk; bjd;g[wk; fpsBky; fprk; (25) bjd;tly; fprk; 6 1/2 Mwiu .... (extracted as such) Schedule in Ex.A.2: brhj;J tpguk;: nuhkehjg[uk; o KJFsj;J]h; rg;o Mg;gD]h; fpuhkj;jpy; jhA;fs; ehuhazj;Bjthplk; fpiuak; thA;fpapUf;fpw bfhy;iyf;F (tlf;F)_ bkhfh gpr;ir uht [j;jjh fpuaf bfhy;iyf;F (fpHf;F) vA;fs; kzy;f;F bra;f;F (bjhF) vA;fs; bfhy;iy epyj;Jf;F (Bkw;F) njw;Fs;gl;l glg;go thz; gaph;f; bfhy;iy jhf;Ff. fpsBky fp&k; (25) nUgj;ije;J bjd;tly; fprk; 6 1/2 Muiu Vjjk; RUf;fKs;gl ..... (extracted as such) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 14. Subsequently, in the name of the first plaintiff, the patta was obtained in respect of an extent of 0.03.5 hectares, in other words, 3 ares and 5 centi ares. However, the defendants contended before the trial Court that they happened to be the successors of the vendor found specified in Exs.A.1 and A.2 and the said vendor retained his own land to the east of the properties sold under Exs.A.1 and A.2 and as such, the plaintiffs simply by getting the patta for a larger extent, cannot try to erode the right of the defendants and accordingly, they prayed for the dismissal of the suit itself. 15. The learned Counsel for the defendants would succinctly and precisely advance his arguments to the effect that Exs.A.1 and A.2 refer to a rectangular portion of land which was purchased by the propositus of the plaintiffs; under Ex.A.1, the southern portion of the said rectangular portion was purchased and the remaining northern portion was purchased under Ex.A.2. In Ex.A.1 itself, the words 'jr;RKHk;' (carpenter cubit) as well as 'bf$k;' (yard) are found mentioned. 'jr;RKHk;' is equivalent to 2.75 feet and 'Yard' is equivalent to 3 feet. However, if 'jr;RKHk;' measurement is taken, then the total extent of the rectangular portion covered under Exs.A.1 and A.2 would come to 5 1/2 cents, but if 'Yard' measurement is taken, then the total extent would come to 6 1/2 cents. But, as per the patta, the total extent comes to 8.6 cents which was rounded to 9 cents in the plaint scheduled property. 16. At this juncture, I would like to point out that both the Courts below and the parties got themselves flummoxed and confused; bamboozled and discombobulated; mislead and puzzled without adverting to the clinching facts on record. 17. Here, the dispute is only on the eastern side and not on the remaining three sides. The contention of the defendants is that the defendants being the descendants of the vendor under Exs.A.1 and A.2, are having right of ownership on the eastern portion of the suit property which the plaintiffs are claiming. 18. The learned Counsel for the defendants also pellucidly and palpably without mincing words, would make the point clear that the defendants are having no claim for the remaining extents in the suit property apart from certain area on the eastern portion. 19. The core question arises as to what actually is the area of dispute on the eastern side. 20. Both the Courts below fell into error in not addressing themselves to the correct factual position. Linear measurements are found set out in Exs.A.1 and A.2 and they are the guiding factors. So far North to South linear measurement is 13 jr;RKHk; or 13 yards and there is no dispute. This Court is not concerned with the fact as to whether it should be 13 jr;RKHk; or 13 yards because neither on the northern side nor on southern side, there is any dispute and for that, on the western side also, there is no dispute. Since only on the eastern side there is dispute, linear measurement from East to West direction as found in Exs.A.1 and A.2, should be noticed. Accordingly, if worked out, the description of the properties as found set out in Exs.A.1 and A.2 and as extracted supra, the East to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 West measurements as per Exs.A.1 and A.2, is only 25 jr;RKHk; or 25 yards. If it is 25 jr;RKHk;, it comes to 68.75 feet and if it is 25 yards, it comes to 75 feet. 21. The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs 2 to 5, 7 and 8 (herein after referred to as the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs) leaving these facts aside, would try to lay claim over 26 meters as per the plan depicted on the back of the patta, which comes to 86.5 feet. 22. At this juncture, I would like to point out that the plaintiffs, whose burden is to prove their case, cannot try to throw to winds the measurements as found set out in Exs.A.1 and A.2 and simply place reliance on the patta and assert their title. 23. The learned Counsel for the defendants would appositely and appropriately, correctly and legally point out that patta would not confer any title and that based on the patta, the civil Court cannot declare the ownership right of a person, daggers drawn over it. Here, the defendants and the plaintiffs are at logger heads and the defendants assert their right on the eastern side as the descendants of the vendor under Exs.A.1 and A.2, for which, the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs would submit that the defendants have not proved that they are owning the right on the eastern side. 24. It is not for the plaintiffs to go on picking holes in the case of the defendants and expecting the defendants to prove their case. I would also like to refer to the following maxims: "Affirmantis est probare." [The person who affirms must prove.] "Affirmanti, non neganti, incumbit probatio." [The proof is incumbent upon the one who affirms, not on the one who denies.] 25. Accordingly, the onus probandi is on the plaintiffs to prove their case independently. Merely based on the patta, they cannot pray this Court to grant the decree upholding the said extent of 86.5 feet. 'Ubi jus, ibi remedium' [Where there is a right, there is a remedy], is a well settled proposition. Accordingly, if there is any right, then only there could be a remedy. 26. Here, as per Exs.A.1 and A.2, the plaintiffs could assert title. As has been already highlighted supra, there is ambiguity in Exs.A.1 and A.2, because two words were used in one and the same document - Ex.A.1, i.e. at the first instance, it is found specifed as jr;RKHk; and at a later portion of the same document, it is found specified as 'Yard'. The best rule governing in respect of documents/instruments is that the later version will prevail over the former one. The maxims governing in respect of instruments would be as under: (i) "Ad proximum antecedens fiat relatio, nisi impediatur sententia". [Relative words refer to the next antecedent, unless by such construction the meaning of the sentence would be impaired]. Certain excerpts from Broom's Legal Maxims, at page 461, would run thus: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6 "Relative words must ordinarily be referred to the last antecedent, where the intent upon the whole deed or instrument does not appear to the contrary, and where the matter itself does not hinder it: the "last antecedent" being the last word which can be made an antecedent so as to have a meaning. But, although this general proposition is true in strict grammatical construction, yet there are numerous examples in the best writers to show that the context often requires a deviation from the rule, and that the relative may refer to nouns which go before the last antecedent, and either take from it or give to it some qualification. For instance, an order of magistrates was directed to the parish of W., in the county of R., and also to the parish of M., in the county of L., and the words "county of R." were then written in the margin, and the magistrates were, in a subsequent part of the order, described as justices of the peace for the county aforesaid: it was held that it thereby sufficiently appeared that they were justices of the county of R. The above rule of grammar is, of course, applicable to wills as well as to other written instruments; for instance:- A testator devised all his property situate in P., and also his farm called S., to his adopted child M. He then left to his nephew, W., all his other lands; and the will contained this subsequent clause: "And should M. have lawful issue, the said property to be equally divided between her lawful issue." It was held that these words, "the said property" did not comprise the lands devised to the nephew, although it was argued that they must, according to the true grammatical construction of the will, either comprise all the property before spoken of, or must refer to the next antecedent." (ii) "Verba chartarum fortius accipiuntur contra proferentem."[The words of an instrument shall be taken most strongly against the party employing them.] (iii) "Ambiguitas verborum latens verifictione suppletur; nam quod ex facto oritur ambiguum verificatione facti tollitur." [Latent ambiguity may be explained by evidence; for an ambiguity which arises by proof of an extrinsic fact may be removed in like manner.] (iv) "Certum est quod certum reddi potest."[That is sufficiently certain which can be made certain.] 27. Accordingly, if considered, both Exs.A.1 and A.2 should be interpreted as one referring to 'Yard' measurement only. Furthermore, in Ex.A.2, 'Yard' measurement alone is used and not jr;RKHk;. The defendants claiming to be the descendants of the vendor, cannot try to capitalise their own vendor's mistake. The vendor under Exs.A.1 and A.2 ought to have disambiguated and disabused the ambiguity at the earliest point of time by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7 bringing about a rectification deed, but that was not done so; wherefore, the benefit should be given in favour of the vendee. I would also recall the following maxims: (i) "Nul prendra advantage de son tort demesne" - No one shall take advantage of his own wrong. (ii) "Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria" - No one can gain advantage by his own wrong. 28. A fortiori, it is too late on the part of the defendants to veer round and take pleas quite antithetical to what their vendor committed himself in black and white in Exs.A.1 and A.2. 29. Not to put too fine a point on it, the plaintiffs are entitled to 75 feet from West to East direction, even though not to the entire extent as contemplated in the patta - Ex.A.3. Both the Courts below did not concentrate on these aspects, but they adhered to the web of hypertechnicalities and pushed justice to assume back seat and ultimately, they threw the baby along with the bathe water and thereby dismissed the entire suit warranting interference in second appeal. 30. Accordingly, both the substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the plaintiffs. 31. In the result, the second appeal is allowed and judgments and decrees of both the Courts below are set aside and the original suit is decreed as under: The plaintiffs are declared to be the absolute owners of the suit property measuring an extent of 75 feet from West to East direction starting from the undisputed western boundary and hereby, there is no modification or alteration mandated in regard to the North to South linear measurement and accordingly, they are entitled to consequential injunction also as prayed for. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs. SD ASST REGISTRAR ( AE ) /TRUE COPY/ SUB ASST REGISTRAR rsb To 1.The Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram. 2.The Subordinate Judge, Paramakudi. 1CC TO MR.M. AJMAL KHAN, ADVOCATE, SR: 38154 1CC TO MR M. SURESH KUMAR, ADVOCATE, SR: 38294: DM::2012::JANUARY:23:: S.A(MD)No.114 of 2011 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2011 03.11.2011 7P:5C:: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/