BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.04.2024 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR S.A.No.339 of 2000

1.Chidambaram (Died)

2.Thambusamy

3.Nithiyanandham ...Appellants -Vs-

1.Nagalakshmi (Died)

2.Perumal (Died)

3.Kanakambal 4.Loganathan

5.Thiruchelvam

6.Susila

7.Saravanamuthu

8.Kumaravel

9.Muthuvijayan

10.Dharman

11.Natarajan ... Respondents (Appellants 2 and 3 were brought on record as legal heirs of the deceased sole appellant vide order of this Court, dated 01.03.2016 in M.P(MD)Nos.1 to 5 of

2013)

(Respondents 3 to 6 were brought on record as legal heirs of the deceased second respondent, vide order of this Court, dated 11.12.2024 made in M.P.(MD)Nos.2 and 3 of 2014)

(R7 to R11 were brought on record as legal heirs of the deceased first respondent vide order of this Court, dated 25.02.2022 in C.M.P.(MD)Nos.12162 to 12164 of

2019)

PRAYER : Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree, dated 16.03.1999 passed in A.S.No.14 of 1998 on the file of the Additional District Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Pudukottai passed in A.S.No.14 of 1998, dated 16.03.1999 confirming the decree and judgment of the Additional District Munsif Court, Pudukottai passed in O.S.No.1677 of 1989, dated 18.10.1996.

For Appellants : Mr.Balakrishnan R1 and R2 :Died For R3 to R6 :No appearance For R7 to R10 :Dispensed For R11 :Mr.C.Maniyarasu ****

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant herein. The suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration of title and for injunction was dismissed by the trial Court and the findings of the trial Court were affirmed by the first appellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the plaintiff is before this Court.

2.Pending the Second Appeal, the sole appellant died and his legal heirs were brought on record as Appellants 2 and 3. Likewise, pending the Second Appeal, the Respondents 1 and 2 died and their legal heirs were brought on record as Respondents 3 to 11.

3.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the suit.

4.According to the plaintiff, the suit property in S.Nos.253/3B and 253/3C in Kothamangalam Village, Alangudi Taluk, Pudukottai District was his ancestral property and he got it by inheritance. It was also claimed that the plaintiff and his father Muthu Karuppan had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for the past 50 years. The first defendant, Nagalakshmi claimed right over the suit property on the ground that her husband, Duraisamy Servai purchased portion of the suit property from one Megavarnam. The first defendant also sold portion of the suit property to the second defendant. It was also claimed by the plaintiff that the aforesaid Megavarnam had no right over the suit property and the defendants claimed right over the suit property under fraudulent sale deeds. The plaintiff further contended that the defendants, by taking advantage of order passed in their favour by the revenue authorities, attempted to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff and hence, he was constrained to file a suit for declaration of title and for injunction.

5.The defendants filed a written statement and had resisted the suit property on the ground that the total extent in S.No.253/3 was 6 acres 17 cents and the same was originally belonged to plaintiff's father, Muthu Karuppan and his brothers, Megavarnam @ Baskaran son of Solaimalai and Chinniah son of Rengan. It was also claimed that Megavarnam @ Baskaran sold 1 acre 67 cents of lands on the southern side of the aforesaid survey number in favour of the first defendant's husband, Duraisamy Servai and handed over the possession. It was also claimed that in earlier litigation in O.S.No.207 of 1974, there was a finding that the suit property belonged to the plaintiff's father Muthu Karuppan, Megavarnam and Chinniah and the said finding was affirmed by the first appellate Court in A.S.No.18 of 1976. Therefore, claimi