BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 15.07.2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN S.A.(MD)No.283 of 2025 and C.M.P(MD)No.10183 of 2025 Govindhan ... Appellant -vs-

1.A.Baskarasethupathi 2.A.Veeraragavan (died)

3.V.Gomathi

4.V.Rajeshkanna

5.V.Srithar

6.V.Kayathiri ..Respondents PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2025 made in A.S.No.65 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Srivilliputhur confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2016 made in O.S.No.48 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur.

For Appellant ... Mr.M.Jerin Mathew

JUDGMENT

The defendant is before this court on appeal.

2. The second appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.03.2025 in A.S.No.65 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Srivilliputhur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2016 in O.S.No.48 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Srivilliputhur.

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

4. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the suit schedule property originally belonged to their father, one Azharsamy Naidu. Azharsamy Naidu died 20 years ago, leaving behind his sons, namely, the plaintiffs, the daughter Lalithabai, and wife Venkitammal. The legal heirs, who inherited the property, had entered into a registered partition deed dated 10.02.1989, and thereby, the first schedule was allotted in favour of the first plaintiff, and the second schedule was allotted in favour of the second plaintiff. As such, in view of the said partition, the first and third item properties were allotted to the first plaintiff, and the second item property was allotted to the second plaintiff. The 4th item of suit property is a Well and motor. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that revenue records were mutated in their favour and pattas were issued, and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The plaintiffs have been cultivating, and an Adangal has been issued in the name of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs had paid electricity charges also in respect of the motor in the Well, the 4th item of property.

5. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that since they are Government servants and away from the suit property, their mother, Venkidammal, has been looking after the cultivation of the suit properties. The defendant was working as a daily wage worker employed by their mother for the purpose of irrigating the land. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the defendant is having some land on the eastern side of the suit property, and he had permission to draw water from the 4th item, Well, by paying necessary charges. After the death of their mother, Venkidammal, the defendant, who was elected as Panchayat President, had shifted his duties. As such, thereafter, the plaintiffs had been directly cultivating the property through their maternal uncle, Venugopal. Since the defendant with his position tried to encroach upon the suit property, the plaintiffs had come up with the suit for bare injunction.

6. The defendant resisted the suit by filing a written statement.

The case of the defendant is that Azharsamy Naidu is the owner of the suit property. However, the suit properties were leased out in favour of one Irulappan for cultivation. Since the said Irulappan could not continue cultivation due to his old age, he introduced the defendant to Azharsamy Naidu to continue the cultivation in the suit property. The defendant was permitted to cultivate the suit properties by paying a sum of Rs.19,000/- per year as a lease amount. It is the further claim of the defendant that he had been paying the lease amount to Azharsamy Naidu for two years and had been cultivating the property till his death. Thereafter also, the defendant had been continuing his lease by paying the lease a