IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 26.04.2022

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR

SA.No.302 of 2017

1.Anbalagan

2.Nagarathinam

3.Durian @ Boomilingam

4.Elumalai

5.Sasi

6.Selvam

7.Raji

8.Prabhu

9.Kuppammal

.. Appellants/Defendants

Vs.

A.Takshinamoorthy

.. Respondent/Plaintiff

Prayer:- Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil

Procedure Code, to set aside the judgement and decree of the

learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, dated

12.12.2016 in A.S.No.53 of 2014, thereby reversing the judgement

and decree of the learned District Munsif cum Judicial

Magistrate, Vanur dated 20.10.2014 in OS.No.131 of 2008.

For Appellants

:

Mr.T.Saikrishnan

For Respondent

:

Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran

JUDGMENT

1) The appellants are the defendants in the suit in OS.No.131

of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court-cum-

Judicial Magistrate, Vannur Taluk, Thindivanam.

2) The respondent in this appeal as plaintiff, filed the suit

in OS.No.131/2008 for declaration of his title to the suit

'A' Schedule property and for consequential permanent

injunction restraining the defendants/appellants from

interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the suit properties.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3) The suit 'A' schedule property is described as an extent of

12 cents in Survey Number 181/22 in Periya Kozhuvari

village in Vannur Taluk. The extent of 6 cents out of total

extent of 12 cents in survey Number 181/22 is described as

suit 'B' schedule property.

4) The case of the respondent herein, in the plaint is that

the suit property is the absolute property of the

plaintiff. It is his case that one Muthammal purchased the

suit property by a registered sale Deed dated 11.12.1944

from one Kamatchiammal and the said Muthammal later

executed a registered settlement Deed in favour of the

plaintiff on 29.06.1966, when he was a minor. It is his

further case that his father was in the management of the

property till he became major and that the plaintiff became

the absolute owner after attaining majority.

5) It is his specific case that suit 'B' schedule property is

part of suit 'A' schedule property which was obtained by

him under the settlement Deed, which is marked as Ex.A2.

Stating that the defendants have falsely obtained Patta in

respect of suit 'B' schedule property and tried to

interfere with the possession of plaintiff, the plaintiff

came forward with the suit for declaration of title and

consequential injunction.

6) The suit was resisted by the appellants, by specifically

disputing the avernments in the plaint. It is the case of

the defendants that Muthammal the predecessor in title of

plaintiff, is the wife of one Koneri and the said Koneri

purchased the properties on 11.12.1944, in the name of his

wife. Stating that the said Koneri died leaving behind his

wife one Muthammal and his brother by one Anandan, it is

contended that the plaintiff is the son born through the

said Anandan and Muthammal. The settlement Deed stated to

have been executed by Muthammal in favour of the plaintiff

is specifically denied in the written statement. It is

further stated that the entire suit 'A' schedule property

was in the joint possession and enjoyment of one Sambasivam

and Kali. It is further stated that the said Sambasivam and

Kali had divided the suit properties and other properties

orally and in the said oral partition, the suit 'B'

schedule property was allotted to the share of Sambasivam.

It is further stated that the plaintiff's father Kali was

given only an extent of 6 cents. Stating that the suit 'B'

schedule property is in continuous enjoyment and

possession of Sambasivam till his death and Patta and other

revenue records were standing in the name of Sambasivam for

a long period, the defendants as the legal heirs of the

said Sambasivam, claimed title