IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Judgment Reserved on Judgment Pronounced on

16.02.2024 08.03.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI S.A.No.537 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.15136 of 2018 V.Muniyappan ..Appellant Vs.

1.T.Settu @ Salappan

2.S.Palani

3.Muniyammal @ Muthulakshmi

4.M.Sakkaravarthi ..Respondents PRAYER: The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2018 passed in A.S.No.46 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, partly allowing the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2017 passed in O.S.No.195 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai.

For Appellant : Ms.N.Nathami for Mr.T.S.Baskaran For Respondents For R1 : Mrs.AL.Gandhimathi Senior Counsel for Mr.A.R.Karthik Lakshmanan For RR2 to 4 : No appearance

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.02.2018 passed in A.S.No.46 of 2017 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Krishnagiri, partly allowing the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2017 passed in O.S.No.195 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Uthangarai.

2.The 1^st defendant in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction is the appellant herein, aggrieved by the reversal findings rendered by the First Appellate Court.

3.The parties are described as per their litigating status before the Trial Court.

4.The plaintiff's case is that the suit schedule property is a self acquired property, in his possession and enjoyment. The said property consists of two items comprised in S.No.638. The 1^st item of the property originally belonged to the 1^st defendant, being his ancestral property, which was inherited by the plaintiff. So far as the 2^nd item of the suit property is concerned, it belonged to 3^rd defendant's mother Jadachiyammal, who sold it to the 4^th defendant, from whom, the plaintiff purchased the said two items of the suit property in and by a Sale Deed dated 26.05.2010. The plaintiff has mutated revenue records in his favour and while he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment, the defendants tried to interfere with his possession by attempting trespass. The plaintiff has therefore filed the suit for declaration.

5.The 1^st defendant filed a written statement stating that though the 1^st item of the suit property belonged to the 1^st defendant, the 2^nd item of the suit property did not belong to the 3^rd defendant. The Gift Deed was denied by the 1^st defendant, on the ground that the settlor was not the mother of the 3^rd defendant and further, she was also not entitled to item 2 of the suit property.

According to the 1^st defendant, the Settlement Deed was created only to grab the property of the 1^st defendant and the entire lands in S.No.638 measuring 2.80 acres was purchased by the paternal grandfather of the 1^st defendant on 20.07.1957 and the 1^st defendant became entitled to half share at birth and after the demise of his father, the 1^st defendant's share increased to 2/3^rd. The 1^st defendant therefore questioned that the plaintiff's entitlement as not being valid. The 1^st defendant, in order to meet the marriage expenses of the 3^rd defendant, had spent a sum of Rs.6,00,000/- and in order to celebrate the marriage, he was forced to avail loan and in order to settle the same, the item

1 of the suit property alone was sold to the 4^th defendant.

6.The 3^rd defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by the 2^nd defendant. According to these defendants, the plaintiff was not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The 1^st item of the property, being ancestral property, the 1^st and 3^rd defendants were also entitled to a share in the property and therefore, the sale executed by the 1^st defendant, without the consent of the 3^rd defendant would not bind the 3^rd defendant. According to the 3^rd defendant, the Gift Deed in her favour, by her mother Jadachiammal was true and the sale in favour of the 4^th defendant was for consideration and also valid.

7.T