Case Note & Summary
This second appeal arises from a suit for declaration and recovery of possession of property claimed by the appellants (plaintiffs). The plaintiffs contended that the suit property belonged to their ancestors, Vellaiya Nadar, son of Pichaiya Nadar and father of Madasamy Nadar, and that this lineage was reflected in certain official revenue records, namely Ex.A1 (certified copy of patta) and Ex.A14 (certified copy of Village 'A' Register under the UDR Scheme). In the trial court, the District Munsif, Muthukulathoor, decreed the suit in their favour in O.S. No. 69 of 2005 on 14.07.2016, accepting their title. However, the first appellate court, the Subordinate Judge, Muthukulathoor, reversed that decree in A.S. No. 81 of 2017 on 28.10.2020 and dismissed the suit. The first appellate court held that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently established that Vellaiyar Nadar was indeed their ancestor and disbelieved the contents of Ex.A1 and Ex.A14. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed the present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court admitted the appeal on 13.09.2022, framing two substantial questions: (i) whether the lower appellate court was right in disbelieving the certified copies of the patta and Village 'A' Register when there was no contrary evidence and when a presumption of correctness as to official acts under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, operated in favour of the plaintiffs; and (ii) whether the lower appellate court was right in dismissing the suit solely on the ground that the plaintiffs had not proved the ancestral link, when that fact (that Vellaiya Nadar was the son of Pichaiya Nadar and father of Madasamy Nadar) was undisputed, and the law is that undisputed facts need not be proved. The appeal was reserved for judgment on 16.06.2026 and pronounced on 03.07.2026. The final decision of the High Court on these questions is not disclosed in the available text.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Questions of Law - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 100 - The High Court admitted the second appeal on two substantial questions: (i) whether the First Appellate Court was justified in rejecting certified copies of patta and village register (Ex.A1, Ex.A14) when they carry presumption of correctness under Section 114 Evidence Act and no contrary evidence was adduced; (ii) whether the First Appellate Court erred in requiring proof of ancestral relationship that was undisputed, ignoring the principle that undisputed facts need not be proved. (Paras 2)
Issue of Consideration
(i) Whether the lower appellate court was right in disbelieving the contents of Ex.A1 and Ex.A14, certified copies of Patta and Village 'A' Register under UDR Scheme, when no evidence to the contrary had been adduced by the defendants and the presumption as to official acts under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act is in favour of the plaintiffs/appellants? (ii) When there is no dispute with respect to the fact that Vellaiya Nadar is the son of Pichaiya Nadar and the father of Madasamy Nadar, the names appeared in the Exhibits A-1 and A14, the ancestors of the plaintiffs, whether the lower appellate court is right in dismissing the suit only on the ground that it is not established that Vellaiyar Nadar is the plaintiffs' ancestor, ignoring settled proposition of law that the undisputed facts need not be proved?
Law Points
- under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure
- 1908
- a second appeal can be admitted only on substantial questions of law
- presumption under Section 114 of Indian Evidence Act
- 1872
- that official acts are regularly performed applies to certified copies of revenue records
