IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.07.2024 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM S.A.No.484 of 2010

1.T.M.Parsuanatha Nainar (Died)

2.P.Rajakumari

3.P.Appadurai 4.P.Duraisamy

5.P.Mohan ...Appellants (Appellants 2 to 5 brought on records as LR's of deceased sole appellant vide order of Court dated 03.03.2023 made in C.M.P.Nos.23044, 23046, 23048 of 2022 in S.A.No.464 of 2010)

Vs.

1.The Secretary, Villupuram Regulated Market Committee, Villupuram Town, Villupuram District.

2.The Superintendent, Regulated Market Committee, Gingee Town, Gingee Taluk. ...Respondents PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.142 of 2005, dated 30.01.2010, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gingee, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.528 of 1989, dated 17.08.2005, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Gingee.

For Appellants : Mr.D.Rajagopal For Respondents : Mr.V.Jayaprakash Narayanan

J U D G M E N T

Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.142 of 2005, dated 30.01.2010, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Gingee, reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.528 of 1989, dated 17.08.2005, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Gingee.

2.The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff under the registered sale deed dated 22.06.1981. The defendants have no locus standi to dispute the plaintiff's title to the suit property. S.No.85/2 comprises Ac.0.42. The Government acquired an extent of Ac.0.31 and delivered to the defendants for the purpose of establishing regulated market committee at Gingee. The plaintiff purchased the property in S.No.85/2 and it has been sub divided as 85/2A AC 0.31 and 85/2B1. So, the defendants can claim title to S.No.85/2 Ac.0.31 only. But, the defendants trespassed in the suit property and constructed a compound wall. The plaintiff came to know about the same and requested to remove the compound wall from his property. But the defendants threatened to increase the height of the wall.

Hence the plaintiff filed the suit.

3.The defendants contested the suit, filed a written statement and denied the allegations contained in the plaint and contended that the plaintiff purchased on the east of the defendants' property. South of Tindivanam Road and Syed Akbar's property, North of odai and west of Thoppai Gounder's land and lake channel. The description of the plaintiff's property as on the east of the defendants' property is false. The description relates to S.No.85/2A and 85/282. Akbar's Property is also involved in the suit. He is a necessary party to the suit. After the suit, Commissioner was appointed. The Pirka Surveyor accompanied the defendants and measured S.No.85/2 Ac.0.42. 85/2A, 85/2B1 and 85/2B2 and measured the properties. The Commissioner submitted his report along with the plaint. Inspite of the report and the plan, the plaintiff wrongly stated that the compound wall has been raised to 8.42 cents and were owned by one Lakshmipathy Naidu and out of that 31 cents have been acquired and not in enjoyment of the defendants. Similarly, 0.8 ¼ cents have been purchased by the plaintiff by sale deed dated 22.06.1981 and 0.2 ¾ cents have been sold to Syed Akbar Sahib. Therefore, it is clear that the total 42 cents in old survey No.85/2 have been distributed as explained above. Compound wall has not been constructed in the plaintiff's land. Therefore, the contention of the plaintiff regarding the encroachment are highly imaginary, contrary to the facts and none of the documents support this contention and thus, pleaded to dismiss the suit.

4.Before the Trial Court, in support of the plaintiff's case, PWs 1 &

2 were examined and 14 documents were marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.14. On the side of the defendants, DW 1 was examined and 1 document was marked as Ex.B.1. Exs.C1 to C4 were also marked.

5.On a consideration of the oral