IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved On

22.07.2021

Pronounced On

03.08.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

S.A.No.651 of 2012

(Through Video Conferencing)

Raja

.. Appellant/Appellant/Defendant

vs.

Ayyakannu

... Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff

Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure

Code, 1908 against the Judgment and Decree dated 03.02.2012

passed in A.S.No.59 of 2006 by the Principal Sub Judge,

Tiruvannamalai, by confirming the Judgment and Decree dated

30.03.2005 passed in O.S.No.18 of 2003 by the Additional

District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai

For Appellant

: Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy, Sr.Counsel

for Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran

For Respondent

: Mr.J.Ramakrishnan

J U D G M E N T

This appeal is directed against the impugned judgement

and decree dated 03.02.2012, passed by the Principal Sub Court,

Tiruvannamalai in A.S.No.59 of 2006. For the sake of

convenience, the ranks of the parties before the trial court

shall be referred in this order unless the context requires

otherwise.

2. The appellant was the defendant in O.S.No.18 of 2003

before the Additional District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai

(also referred to as the Trial Court unless the context requires

otherwise) which was decreed by the Trial Court.

3. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff (respondent

herein) for a declaration of title to the suit schedule property

measuring an extent of 3 cents in the northern portion of Re-

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

Survey.No.105/1B/1 and for a permanent injunction to restrain

the defendant (appellant herein) from interfering with the

peaceful possession over the same. The said suit was decreed

by the Trial Court.

4. The appellant had filed A.S.No.59 of 2006 against

judgement and decree dated 30.3.2005 passed by the Additional

District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai in O.S.No.18 of 2003.

5. By the impugned judgement and decree dated 03.02.2012,

the Principal Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai (hereinafter referred to

as the Appellate Court) had dismissed the appeal filed by the

appellant(defendant) in A.S.No.59 of 2006.

6. The plaintiff (respondent herein) had filed the above

suit on the strength of Ex.A.3 Sale deed dated 7.4.2000. The

case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court was that the

plaintiff purchased the aforesaid property measuring an extent

of 3 cents from one Jothiammal and her son Manickavasagam who

are the descendants of the original allottee, Annasamy Nainar to

whom 6 cents of land in Re-survey No.105/1B/1 was allotted and

Ex.A1 dated 31.7.1974 Patta was issued.

7. The original allottee, Annasamy Nainar died about 25

years back and that the original allottee Annasamy Nainar's

daughter Amaravathy Ammal had left the village about 30 years

back and that after the death of the original allottee Annasamy

Nainar, his granddaughter namely Jothiammal [D/o Amaravathy

Ammal along with her husband Kathirvel] were in possession of

the land allotted to the said Annasamy Nainar.

8. It was further case of the plaintiff that the said

Kathirvel, the husband of Jothiammal was issued with Exs.B1 to

B3 Patta vide Patta No. 481 along with three others.

9. It was submitted that after the death of Kathirvel,

the plaintiff's vendors Jothiammal [ W/o late. Kathirvel /D/o.

Amaravathy Ammal] and Manickavasagam [S/o late. Kathirvel &

Jothiammal (one of the vendor) who is the grandson of Amaravathy

Ammal and great grandson of the original allottee, Annasamy

Nainar] along with his mother, Jothiammal sold an extent of 3

cents on the northern side to the plaintiff vide Ex.A.3 Sale

deed dated 7.4.2000.

10. The further case of the plaintiff before the Trial

Court was that the plaintiff was in possession of the said

property on which he had put up a thatched house.

ht