IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 10.01.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN S.A.Nos.221 and 222 of 2013 & M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2013 S.A.No.221 of 2023:

Dhanapalan ... Defendant/Appellant/Defendant Vs.

Gandhimathi ... Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 23.02.2012 in A.S.No.77 of 2009 on the file of the Sub-Court, Namakkal, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 29.07.2009 in O.S.No.13 of 2006 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Namakkal.

S.A.No.221 of 2023:

Dhanapalan ... Plaintiff/Appellant/ Appellant Vs.

1.Gandhimathi

2.Subramani ... Defendants/Respondents/Respondents Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 23.02.2012 in A.S.No.78 of 2009 on the file of the Sub- Court, Namakkal, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 29.07.2009 in O.S.No.482 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Namakkal.

In both the S.A's.:

For Appellant : Ms.Sri Varshini for Mr.I.Abrar Md.Abdullah For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Kalyanaraman

COMMON JUDGMENT

These appeals arise against the common judgment in A.S.No.77 of

2009 and A.S.No.78 of 2009 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal dated 23.02.2012. The appeals arose before the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal out of a common judgment that had been delivered by the learned Principal District Munsif at Namakkal in O.S.No.482 of 2005 and O.S.No.13 of 2006 dated 29.07.2009.

2. O.S.No.482 of 2005 was filed by the Appellant/Dhanapalan seeking for the relief of permanent injunction not to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. O.S.No.13 of 2006 was filed by the defendant in O.S.No.482 of 2005 namely one Gandhimathi claiming the relief of declaration of title and for recovery of possession. Being a suit for larger relief, it was treated as primary suit and evidence was recorded in that suit. O.S.No.482 of 2005, being a suit for lesser relief, it was treated as secondary suit and common evidence was recorded and exhibits were marked only in O.S.No.13 of 2006.

3. The total extent of land in S.No.31/3 of Mettupatti Village, Namakkal District hails about 1 acre 50 cents. There is no dispute between either of the parties with respect to 1 acre 25 cents. The dispute arose with respect to the remaining extent of the property of 0.25 acres or 25 cents. 4. For the sake of convenience, in these appeals, the plaintiff in O.S.No.13 of 2006 viz., Gandhimathi will be referred to as the plaintiff and the plaintiff in O.S.No.482 of 2005 viz., Mr.Dhanapalan, shall be referred to as the defendant.

5. The trial court framed the following issues in O.S.No.13 of 2006: ,tt; Hff; pd; jPht; f[ f; hf fPHf; f; zl; vGtpdhff; s;

09/06/2006 md;W tidagg; ll; d ?

:

(1) jhthr;brhjj; py; thjpf;F vej; tpj ghjj; paKk.;

chpika[k; mDgtKk; ,y;iy vd;W gpujpthjpfs;

TWtJ rhpah>

(2) thjp nfhUfpw tpskg; [if ghpfhuk;

fpilff; jj; ff; jh>

(3) mjd; bjhlh;r;rpahf thjp nfhUk; RthjPd ghpfhuk; thjpfF; fpilff; fT; oajh>

(4) thjpf;F fpilff; jj; ff; ntW ghpfhu'f; s;

vdd; > ,tt; Hff; py; 03/03/2008 md;W tidagg; ll; Tljy;

vGtpdh gpdt; UkhW ?

:

(1) gpujpthjpapd; bgahpy; 29/07/1980 eyY; rhkp jhd brlo; y;bkdl; ; gjj; puk; vGjpf;bfhLj;J mjd; mogg; ilapy; jhthr;brhjj; pd; RthjPdjj; py; gpujpthjp ,Ue;JtUtjhf TWtJ cz;ikah>

6. The following issues had been framed in O.S.No.482 of 2005: ,tt; Hff; pd; jPht; f[ f; hf fPHf; f; zl; vGtpdhff; s;

20/12/2005 md;W tidagg; ll; d ?

:

(1) jhthr;brhjJ; 1k; gpujpthjpf;F ghjj; pagg; ll; J vdg; J rhpah>

(2) thjp nfhUk; epuej; u cWj;Jff; ll; isg;

ghpfhuk; thjpfF; fpilff; jj; ff; jh>

(3) ntW vdd; ghpfhuk;>

7. Before the trial court, the plaintiff/Gandhimathi examined herself as PW1 and in addition, examined four other witnesses and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A10. The defendant examined himself as DW1 and two other witnesses namely DW2 and DW3 and marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B4. Ex.X1 to Ex.X6 w