IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 15.10.2024 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI S.A.No.697 of 2024

1. Visakar

2. Vinothini

3. Vimala

4. Vidya

5. Senthamilselvi ...Appellants Vs.

1. K.Ramachandran

2. Muruvammal

3. The Sub Registrar, O/o. Sub Registrar, Sirkali, Mayiladuthurai District.

4. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by its District Collector, Nagapattinam District, Collectorate Complex, South Palpannaichery, Nagapattinam District. ... Respondents Prayer : Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 24.11.2022 made in A.S.No.30 of 2017 passed by the Additional District Court, Mayiladuthurai, confirming the Judgement and Decree dated 28.06.2017 made in O.S.No.123 of 2015 passed by the Principal Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai.

For Appellants : Mr.B.Jawahar For Respondent : Mr.A.Mohamed Ismail for R1 For R3 & R4 : Dr.S.Suriya Additional Government Pleader

J U D G M E N T

The above second appeal arises against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.30 of 2017 on the file of the Additional District Court, Mayiladuthurai, confirming the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.123 of 2015 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Mayiladuthurai.

2. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff/1^st respondent herein filed a suit for declaration, to declare the sale deed dated 24.11.1998 stands in the name of the 1^st defendant's father as null and void and also permanent injunction.

3. According to the plaintiff, the suit property originally belongs to one Ramanatha Chettiar and their family dispute, the Said Ramanatha Chettiar had filed suit for partition against Veerappa Chettiar in O.S.No.97 of 1952 before the Sub Court, Devakottai, and the same decreed dated 03.10.1992 , in that suit property allotted to Veerappa Chettiar. Thereafter the said Veerappa Chettiar was possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Further, there was a partition among the family members of the said Veerappa Chettiar, the suit property was allotted to one Arunchalam son of Veerappa Chettiar. Thereafter, the plaintiff has purchased the suit property from Arunachalam on 12.08.2013 from that onwards, the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the property. Further, the defendants have caused interference in the suit property. Hence, the suit.

4. According to the defendants, the suit property was in the tenancy arrangement of one Lakshmanan. But the landlord not evince in claiming rent from the tenant. The landlord never turned to the suit property for more than 40 years. After demise of Lakshmanan, his son Sathiyaseelan continue to do cultivation in the suit lands with his physical labour. Except him, In his family no one turned to do cultivation or claimed any right over the suit property. After Sathiyaseelan, taking possession of the suit property and doing cultivation, no landlord turned to the suit property, neither claimed any right or interest nor demanded any rent from Sathiyaseelan. So, Sathiyaseelan was enjoying the suit property as absolute owner without anyone let or hindrance.

5. Further the said Sathiyaseelan is the absolute owner of the suit property and sold the property to the defendant's father by a Registered Sale deed dated 24.11.1998. In fact the 1^st defendant has acted as Power Agent for the said Sathiyaseelan and executed the sale deed, as per the Registered General Power Deed executed by Sathiyaseelan in favour of the 1^st defendant dated 14.07.1997 and in the plaint stated that the said Sathiyaseelan cancelled the registered power deed on 17.11.1998. Further, the 1^st defendant was not aware of the cancellation of power deed hence, the power deed is in force and not been property cancelled. Therefore, the said sale deed in favour of the 1^st defendant father dated 24.11.1998 is a valid and legally sustainable document. After demise of the 1^st defendant's father, the defendant is the absolute owner of the suit property and he is right over the suit property.

6. Before t