BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated: 19/03/2025 CORAM The Hon'ble Mr.Justice G.ILANGOVAN SA No.545 of 2003

1.Pasubathi (Died) : 1^st Appellant/Appellant/

Plaintiff

2.Soundraw Ambikai

3.Kannan

4.Uma

5.Sree Priya

6.Rajalakshmi : Appellants 2 to 6/ (Appellants 2 to 6 & L.Rs of the deceased

14th respondent brought on Sole Appellant record as L.Rs of the deceased Sole Appellant, vide Court order, dated 18/12/2024 made in CMP(MD)No.11707 of 2023 in SA No.545 of 2003)

Vs.

1.Ponnain (Died)

2.Rathinam

3.Perumal : Respondents 1 to 4/

Respondents 1,2 & 4/

Defendants 1, 2 & 4

4.Annapottu

5.Chellam : Respondents 4 and 5/

Respondents 5 and 6/ LR.s of the deceased

3rd Defendant

6.Jayalakshmi

7.Selvaganapathy

8.Rajarajan

9.Amutha

10.Vanitha

11.Manikandan

12.Sudha

13.Nithya : Respondents 6 to 13/

(Respondents 6 to 13 are brought on record as L.Rs of the deceased 1st respondent vide court order, dated 30/06/2003 made in CMP(MD)Nos.4736 to 4738 of

14.Raja : 14^th Respondent/L.R of the deceased sole appellant PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the decree and judgment passed in AS No.63 of 1998, dated 27/03/2002 on the file of the Sub Judge, Thiruchirappalli, confirming the decree and judgment passed in OS No.66 of 1987, dated

08/03/1993 on the file of the District Munsif, Ariyalur.

For Appellants : Mr.K.Vamanan For 1st Respondent : Died (Steps Taken)

For R2 to R13 : Mr.K.Kumaravel For 14th Respondent : Mrs.S.Bharathi

J U D G M E N T

This second appeal is filed against the decree and judgment passed in AS No.63 of 1998, dated 27/03/2002 by the Sub Judge, Thiruchirappalli, confirming the decree and judgment passed in OS No.66 of 1987, dated 08/03/1993 by the District Munsif, Ariyalur.

2.The plaint averments:-

The plaintiff's father Rajagopal Pillai constructed a thatched house in the suit property and living along with his family. After the death of his father, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment. The first defendant was an Ex-Village Munsif. He claimed some right over the property. After the abolition of Village Munsif post, the Government issued patta for the property in favour of the plaintiff and his father. There was some mis-description of property in the patta. So, it was submitted to the Revenue Divisional Officer for correction. When the patta was sent to the Village Administrative Officer, it was snatched by the first defendant. Neither the first defendant, nor his community people got any right over the property. The plaintiff and his ancestors continued in possession of the suit property and prescribed title by adverse possession. On 05/03/1987, the defendants tried to pull down the house. But it was prevented. So, the suit is laid for declaration that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff and for consequential injunction, costs.

3.The statement:- It is denied that the plaintiff's father constructed a house in the property and living with his family members for several years. But in fact, the house was constructed by the defendants predecessor or ancestor around 1925. The house in the suit property and poojanaimadam adjacent to it were originally constructed by Pattayadharar and maintained by Nattamai. Around 1925, one Maruthai Asari was permitted to live in the house. Later it became dilapidated. Around 1957, it was reconstructed by making repairs, etc. One Rajagopal Pillai was permitted to run a school in the building. Later, the school was shifted to some other place. Around 1964 onwards, the defendants are in possession and enjoyment. Around that year, the plaintiff's brother by name Senthamarai Kannan was appointed as Village Karnam. At that time, he had no house to reside. So, Senthamarai Kannan and his family members were permitted to occupy the house. The plaintiff was also living with Senthamarai Kannam in that house. The defendants revoked the permission and asked the plaintiff to vacate the same.

4.Later, additional statement was filed stating that the plaintiff was never in p