R.Soundararaj vs Velumani - 2026 Supreme(Mad) 1011

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Mad) 1011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
R.Soundararaj - Appellant
Versus
Velumani - Respondent
S.A.No.269 of 2020
Decided On : 03-06-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr.C.Veera Raghavan
For the Respondents: Mr.N.Umapathi

Important Points

In a title dispute where overlapping property descriptions exist, a court cannot determine the superior title based solely on the date of execution; it must appoint an advocate commissioner to identify the specific locations of the properties against the respective title deeds and revenue records.

Subject

Civil Law - Property Law / Second Appeal

Headnote

The case involves a dispute regarding a declaration of title, injunction, and recovery of possession. The relevant legal provision invoked is S.100 of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the Second Appeal. The appellant claimed ownership via a 1982 registered sale deed, whereas the respondent denied the title and alleged encroachment. The trial court initially favored the appellant, but the first appellate court reversed the decision, leading to this appeal. The High Court analyzed the evidence, finding that the first appellate court failed to consider the respondent's admissions during cross-examination and the evidentiary value of old registered documents. The core issues framed were whether the lower appellate court correctly rejected the appellant’s sale deed (Ex.A1) and revenue records (Ex.A2), and whether it erred in reversing the judgment despite the respondent's admission of the appellant’s title. The court reasoned that in cases of overlapping property titles where competing documents exist, identifying the boundaries through an advocate commissioner is essential. Since the respondent’s title document was anterior in time, the court determined that the dispute could not be resolved solely on the strength of the appellant’s subsequent document without a professional physical survey. The court set aside the lower appellate court's decree and remanded the matter back for the appointment of an advocate commissioner to measure the properties and dispose of the suit within six months.

Table of Content
1. procedural background and factual history of the property dispute. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
2. evidentiary value of registered title deeds and party admissions. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 17)
3. necessity of physical survey in overlapping title claims. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)

JUDGMENT :

S.SOUNTHAR, J.

The plaintiff is the appellant. He filed a suit for declaration of title and injunction in respect of suit ‘A’ schedule property and recovery of possession in respect of suit ‘B’ schedule property. The trial Court granted a decree for declaration and injunction in respect of suit ‘A’ schedule property and granted recovery of possession of ‘B’ schedule property. Aggrieved by the same, the 2^nd defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.9 of 2016. The First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has come before this Court.

2. According to the plaintiff, the suit property was purchased by him under registered sale deed dated 22.03.1982 and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same right from the date of purchase. The defendants are owning properties on the eastern and southern sides of the properties. Without having any manner of right over the suit property, the defendants have attempted to interfere with the plaintiff’s possession. Therefore, the suit was initially laid for declaration of title and injunction.

3. According to the plaintiff, pending the suit, the 2^nd defendant committed trespass into the portion of the suit ‘A’ schedule property and hence the same has been described as ‘B’ schedule property and relief of recovery of possession was included in the plaint by way of amendment.

4. It is also seen from the typed set of papers that the suit was not pressed as against the defendants 1, 3 to 6 and the suit was proceeded only as against the 2^nd defendant.

5. The 2^nd defendant filed a written statement, denying the title of the plaintiff over the suit property. It was specific case of the 2^nd defendant that the plaintiff’s vendor had no title to convey the plaintiff.

6. It is also stated by the defendants that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit ‘B’ schedule property for more than four decades and the plaintiff has no title or possession over the same. Thus denying the title and possession of the plaintiff, the 2^nd defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.

7. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and seven documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A7. The 2^nd defendant was examined as DW.1, Village Administrative Officer was examined as DW.2 and Assistant Taluk Officer was examined as DW.3. On behalf of the defendants, nine documents were marked as Ex.B1 to B9. The Adangal extract for fasli year 1378 to 1383 was marked as Ex.X1.

8. The Trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff established his right, title and possession of the suit property and granted a decree for declaration of title and injunction in respect of ‘A’ schedule property. The Trial Court also found that the plaintiff was entitled for recovery of possession of ‘B’ schedule property and decreed the suit as prayed for.

9. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants filed an appeal in A.S.No.9 of 2016, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Pollachi. The First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff has come before this Court.

10. At the time of admission, this Court formulated the following substantial questions of law, by order dated 10.03.2020:

“ 1. Whether the lower appellate Court is correct to rejecting the sale deed of the appellant under Ex.A1 and patta under Ex.A2?

2. Whether the lower appellate Court is correct in reversing in the judgment on the basis that the respondent is in possession of property more than 45 years.

3. Whether the lower Appellate Court is ri