BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT RESERVED ON : 28.10.2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 08.05.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN S.A.(MD)No.91 of 2016 and CMP(MD)No.2022 of 2016 Thirumalai Saminathan ... Appellant / Respondent / Plaintiff Vs.

1.Alagammal ...1^st respondent/appellant/1^st defendant

2.K.Pandi S/o.Kulandai ... 2^nd respondent/2^nd respondent /

2^nd defendant Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, to set aside the judgment and decree of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirappalli in A.S No.149 of 2010 dated 10.10.2011 in reversing the well considered judgment and decree of the District Munsif, Manaparai in O.S No.87 of 2008 dated 14.07.2010. For Appellant : Mr.K.Prabhakar For Respondents : Mr.T.Antony Arulraj for R1

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff in O.S No.87 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Manaparai is the appellant in this second appeal. The suit was for recovery of possession. The suit was decreed by the trial court on 14.07.2010. Aggrieved by the same, the first defendant filed AS No. 149 of 2010 before the Principal Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli. The first appellate court reversed the decision of the trial court vide judgment and decree dated 10.10.2011. Challenging the same, this second appeal has been filed.

2.The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law :

“1.Whether the 1^st Appellate Court is right in reversing the decree and judgment of the Trial Court in the absence of any proof of personal cultivation more so when the first defendant categorically admitted that there is a hut in the suit property?

2. Whether the 1^st Appellate Court is right in reversing the decree for possession when the 1^st defendant had categorically denied the title of plaintiff and claiming title upon herself in the light of decision of this Hon'ble Court?

3. Whether the 1^st Appellate Court is right in relying upon the entry in records of tenancy in the absence of any corroborative material to substantiate the case of tenancy?

4. Whether the 1^st Appellate Court is right in not considering the admission of the defendant changing the character of the land in dispute from cultivable land to house site?

5. Whether the 1^st Appellate Court is right in not considering that claim of right of tenancy by succession from her father, without pleading continuation in her personal involvement of her labour in cultivating the land?

6. Whether the first appellate court is right in not considering Exs.A5, A9 which are patta and adangal issued by the revenue authorities wherein there is no entry reflecting that defendant or her father is the cultivator and which could ultimately lead to presumption that Ex.B1 is only a created document that too when defendant have not adduced any independent, oral or documentary evidence corroborating Ex.B1?

7. Whether the first appellate court is right in not considering the defendant's denial of title of plaintiff who claim right to be in possession as tenant under plaintiff ?”

3.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds of appeal and called upon this Court to answer the substantial questions of law in favour of the appellant and set aside the impugned judgment and decree and restore the decision of the trial court.

4.Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting defendant/respondent herein submitted that the impugned judgment passed by the first appellate court does not call for any interference.

5.I carefully considered the rival contentions and went through the evidence on record. The case of the plaintiff is as follows : The suit property belonged to one Veera Raghava Perumal.

Following his demise, it devolved on his wife Rajambal. Patta was issued in favour of Rajambal. Rajambal sold the suit property to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 11.01.2008. Patta was mutated in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is the sole and exclusive owner of the suit prop