S.A.No.28 of 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 31.01.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

S.A.No.28 of 2023

and C.M.P.No.796 of 2023

Jansi Rani

..

Appellant

Vs.

Poonkothai

..

Respondent

Prayer:- Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC to set aside the

Judgment and Decree dated 29.07.2022, made in A.S.No.111 of 2021 on the

file of V Additional City Civil Court, Chennai by confirming the Judgment and

Decree dated 09.01.2018 made in O.S.No.3514 of 2009, on the file of IV

Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai by allowing the present second

appeal and to pass such other order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and

proper upon the facts and circumstances of the cases.

For Appellant

: Mr.A.Gouthaman

JUDGMENT

This second appeal has been filed as against the Judgment and Decree

dated 29.07.2022, made in A.S.No.111 of 2021 on the file of V Additional City

Civil Court, Chennai by confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 09.01.2018

made in O.S.No.3514 of 2009, on the file of IV Assistant Judge, City Civil

Court, Chennai, thereby dismissing the suit filed for declaration and injunction.

Page 1 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No.28 of 2023

2. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant. The

appellant filed a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of the suit

schedule property. The case of the appellant is that 'A' schedule property is

owned by the appellant and she had purchased the superstructure along with the

lease hold right, since the suit land belong to Yadhava charities. The vendor of

the plaintiff had purchased the suit property from one Govindaraja Pillai and

five others under a registered sale deed dated 15.11.1989 vide Document

No.799 of 1989. From the date of purchase, she is in exclusive possession and

enjoyment of the suit property. The respondent has no manner of right or

interest in the suit property. The passage situated on the Southern side of the

property measuring an extent of 4 feet width 37 feet length running from East

to West leading from Venkatarangampillai Street is used by the appellant for

ingress and egress for the backside portion of the property. The respondent is

the owner of the house property which is situated behind the appellant's

property having entrance from Venkatachala Naicken Street. While being so,

the respondent attempted to trespass into appellant's property. Hence, the suit.

3. Resisting the same, the respondent filed her written statement stating

that the said Govindaraja Pillai and his children were the owners of the

superstructure bearing Door No.155, Venkatarangam Pillai Street, Triplicane,

Page 2 of 10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No.28 of 2023

Chennai, together with the household interest of the site belongs to Yadhava

Charities ad-measuring 1560 sq.ft. The respondent had purchased the rear

portion of the building together with the leasehold interest of the site with the

passage leading from Venkatarangam Pillai Street to the rear portion namely

the passage measuring 4 feet*37 feet East to West and the rear portion

measuring 2 feet* 24 feet totally measuring 796 sq.ft from the said Govindaraja

Pillai by the registered sale deed dated 13.06.1984 registered vide Document

No.371 of 1984. The said Govindaraja Pillai and others had sold the front

portion to one Ganthimathi, viz., the vendor of the appellant herein, by the

registered sale deed dated 15.11.1989 registered vide Document No.799 of

1989, thereby conveyed the front portion of the entire superstructure ad-

measuring 936 sq.ft of land together with the leasehold interest excluding the

leasehold interest of the land to the extent of 148 sq.ft ad-measuring East to

West 37 feet and North to South 4 feet which is owned by the respondent.

Therefore, the appellant's vendor is not entitled for more than 764 sq.ft and as

such