BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 10.10.2022 CORAM : JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE S.A.(MD) No.843 of 2009 Ayyalusami (Died) ... Appellant/1^st Respondent/

1st Defendant

2.Amsaveni

3.Achanna

4.Renugadevi ... Appellants 2 to 4/

LRs of deceased sole appellant [Appellants 2 to 4 brought as LRs of deceased sole appellant vide order dated 06.11.2015 made in M.P.

(MD) No.1 of 2015 in S.A.(MD) No.843 of 2009]

Vs

1.Krishnammal (Died) ... 1^st Respondent/Appellant/

Plaintiff [Memo recorded as per order dated 12.03.2019]

2.Narayanasamy 3.Dhanasekaran

4.Pushparaj

5.Pushpathai

6.Rani

7.Sankaraj ... Respondents 2 to 7/

Respondents 2 to 7/Defendants 2 to 7 Prayer:- Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2009 made in A.S.No.10 of 2009 on the file of the Sub Court, Kovilpatti reversing the judgment and decree dated 26.03.2007 made in O.S.No.242 of 2005 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil.

For Appellants : Mr.M.P.Senthil for appellants 2 to 4 For Respondents : Mrs.M.Maria Vinola for R2 to R7 JUDGMET

1. The first defendant in O.S.No.242 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sankarankovil, is the appellant herein. The suit was laid for permanent injunction to protect the plaintiff's possession over the suit property. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court, but the plaintiff was successful in her first appeal in A.S.No.10 of 2009 before the Sub Court, Kovilpatti. Hence, the first defendant is before this Court with this appeal. For narrative convenience, parties are referred to by their rank before the trial Court.

2.1. The case of the plaintiff is that:

➢ The suit property is described as dry agricultural land measuring about 67 cents in S.No.417/2 of Ilayarasanenthal Village, Sankarankovil Taluk.

➢ According to the plaintiff, this property originally belonged to a certain Shankarappa Naickar, that on his demise, it devolved on his son Perumalsami Naickar, that the property stood mutated in his name, that based on his possession Ext.A.2-patta was granted, and that on 17.05.1998, Perumalsami Naickar passed away leaving behind him surviving his wife, the plaintiff herein, and his children defendants 2 to 7.

➢ The further case of the plaintiff is that on the demise of her husband Perumalsami Naickar, the property devolved on the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 7, that they have been jointly carrying out agricultural activities in the property. Alleging that the first defendant has properties adjacent to the suit property, the plaintiff has laid the suit for injunction, when she faced certain threat to her peaceful possession from the first defendant.

2.2 (a) Defendants 2 to 7 remained ex-parte and the first defendant alone contested the suit. The defence is two-pronged: (a) the plaintiff's husband has never been the owner of the property and that she is trying to misuse the similarity in name of the owner of the property and the name of her husband, and trying to create a title that never was in her husband; and (b) that he is a purchaser under certain unregistered sale deed from the heirs of that Perumalsami Naickar, who according to the first defendant is the original owner of the property.

2.3 (b) Expatiating his case, the first defendant has alleged that:

➢ There are two Shankarappa Naickar, one is known by the name Kanganala Shankarappa Naickar and the other is Kannam Shankarappa Naickar. Kanganala Shankarappa Naickar was married to certain Krishnammal and through whom he had two sons viz., Perumalsami Naickar and Krishnasami Naickar. The plaintiff claims herself to be the wife of Perumalsami Naickar through whom she alleges that she had begotten defendants 2 to 7. Turning to the other Shankarappa Naickar, he is Kannam Shankarappa Naickar and he was married to Rangammal and he had two sons viz., Perumalsami Naickar and Rangasamy Naickar.

➢ The original owner of the suit property is Kannam Shankarappa Naickar and not Kanganala Shankarappa Naickar under