BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.07.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN S.A.(MD)No.161 of 2018 and C.M.P.(MD)Nos.4305 and 4306 of 2018

1.Manickam (Died)

2.Jeyamary

3.Roselin Mary Simiyonraj

4.Santhi Selvaraj

5.Ida Vinnarasi

6.Britti Mariya Selvam ... Appellants vs

1.A.Antony (Died)

Thainesmary (Died)

Kulanthaidhiresh (Died)

2.Jeyarani

3.Jesurajakumar

4.Michaelraj

5.Arockiyamary @ Prema

6.Sahayamary

7.Tanislas

8.Michaelraj

9.Jeyafathima

10.Adaikala Mary

11.A.Vijaya Kumar 12.A.Marry Malathi

13.Savari Daisy ...Respondents (The appellants 3 to 6 were brought on record as legal heirs of the deceased first appellant vide order of this Court, dated 19.07.2024 made in C.M.P.

(MD)No.6575 of 2024)

(The respondents 10 to 13 were brought on record Legal heirs of the deceased first respondent vide Court order, dated 19.07.2024 made in C.M.P.(MD)Nos.6571 and 6574 of 2024)

PRAYER : Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to call for the records relating to the judgment and decree, dated 15.11.2017 made in A.S.No.43 of 2014 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Devakottai reversing the judgment and decree, dated 10.09.2014 made in O.S.No.46 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Devakottai and set aside the same.

For Appellants : Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram Senior Counsel for Mr.J.Anand Kumar For R2 to R9 : Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai for Mr.A.Muralikumar For R10 to R13 :No Appearance *****

JUDGMENT

The defendants are before this Court on appeal. The Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree, dated 15.11.2017, in A.S.No. 43 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Devakottai, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 10.09.2014 made in O.S.No.46 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Devakottai.

2.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as per their litigative status before the trial Court.

3.According to the plaintiffs, the suit property was originally purchased by one Viyagula Udayar and he is the absolute owner, from whom, one Rayar Udayar, who is the grandfather of the plaintiffs, had purchased the suit property on 23.07.1934. Through the sale, a Well has also been conveyed. The suit property measures half kurukkam and the boundaries in the suit property are as per the boundaries in the sale deed. The settlement register also stood in the name of Rayar Udayar. Further, according to the plaintiffs, after the death of the grandfather, Rayar Udayar, his only son Arulandu inherited the suit property and he was in enjoyment of the suit property. Pursuant to the death of Arulandu, the plaintiffs inherited the property and thereafter, the plaintiffs 2 to 5 have executed a document, dated 11.01.2009 relinquishing their shares and rights in favour of the first plaintiff. The patta, which was issued in Patta No.1411 for the suit property, stands in the name of the plaintiffs' father.

4.It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the defendants are residing adjacent to the suit property and the father of the first defendant's name was also Rayar Udaryar. As such, by misusing the name of his father, the first defendant had obtained a patta fraudulently. In view of the patta granted, the first defendant had went ahead and executed a settlement deed in favour of the second defendant and the patta was also mutated. In respect of the patta granted, the plaintiffs have also filed a petition before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Devakottai, for cancellation of the same and in spite of the same, since the defendants are attempting to trespass into the suit property, the plaintiffs have come up with the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

5.The defendants resisted the suit by filing a written statement disputing the claim of the plaintiffs that the suit property originally purchased on 23.07.1934 by their grandfather Rayar Udayar. It is the specific claim of the defendants that the suit property belongs to the first defendant's father, Rayar Udayar, who wa