S.A.No.676 of 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 12.10 .2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

S.A.No.676 of 2013

Saroja (deceased)

1.Jeeva

2.Mohana

3.Ulaganathan

4.Neela ....Appellants

Vs.

1.Seeralan

2.Marimuthu

... Respondents

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the

Judgment and decree dismissing the suit for the relief of declaration dated

29.07.2009 in A.S No. 69 of 2008 on the file of Sub Ordinate Judge,

Knachipuram, confirming the Judgement and Decree dated 16.11.2007 in O.S

No.88 of 2000 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Kanchipuram.

For Appellants

: Mr.R. Mubarak Basha

For Respondents

: Mr.Jyothis Chander

1

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No.676 of 2013

JUDGMENT

The appellants herein are the plaintiffs in the suit in O.S.No.88

of 2000 filed against the defendants/respondents herein for the relief of

declaration and permanent injunction with regard to A and B schedule suit

properties in survey No. 3, situated at Mangalmpadi Village, Kanchipuram

taluk. The defendants denied the plaintiffs right over the suit property by

contended that by way of purchase and adverse possession the defendants are

in exclusive possession of the properties. Considering the oral and

documentary evidence the Trial Court held that the suit property is

Government Poramboku land, therefore the plaintiffs are not entitled for

declaration. With regard to permanent injunction, it has been held that the

plaintiffs are in possession of the suit property hence permanent injunction

was granted in favour of the plaintiffs.

2. Aggrieved over the same, the plaintiffs preferred an appeal

before the Subordinate Judge, kanchipuram, in A. S. No. 69 of 2008, the

lower appellate Judge independently analysed the facts and evidence,

dismissed the appeal and confirmed the findings of the Trial Court.

2

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No.676 of 2013

3. Challenging the same, the plaintiffs preferred this second appeal.

Parties are addressed as per the suit.

4. The Brief facts of the case are as follows:

Originally the suit was filed by one Saroja, wife of deceased

Murugesan who is the original occupier of the A and B schedule suit property

and remaining plaintiffs are legal heirs of the said Murugesan. The said

Murugesan and the second defendant are brothers. Originally the Suit A and

B schedule property was occupied and enjoyed by said Murugesan as

cultivable land till his demise. Thereafter, his legal heirs/plaintiffs possessed

and enjoyed the suit property by cultivating crops and coconut trees. During

the life time of the said Murugesan he purchased the A schedule Property

from one Ponnusamy and others through un-registered sale deed dated

23.02.1970/Ex.A3. Thereafter, he purchased B schedule property from one

Gopal and others through sale deed/ Ex.A2 dated 24.04.1973 and also got

electricity connection for the Well in B schedule property. While so, after the

demise of the Murugesan, the second defendant caused interference in the

enjoyment of the suit properties. So the plaintiffs gave a complaint before the

3

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No.676 of 2013

Police, At that time the first plaintiff came to know that the second defendant

fraudulently obtained sale deed dated 01.12.1983 by getting signature from

the Saroja, with regard to 50 cents in B schedule property. As the first

plaintiff is being a illiterate women, from her the second defendant

fraudulently obtained signature and executed sale deed in favour of him.

Hence, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

5. The Second defendant submitted that after the demise of his brother

Murugesan he helped the first plaintiff and her family. While so,