IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

RESERVED ON

: 28.01.2022

PRONOUNCED ON : 02.02.2022

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN

S.A. No.249 of 2010

Sakkubai (deceased)

1.K.Anbalagan

2.K.Natarajan

3.Kavitha

4.K.Karunanithi

... 1 to 4 Appellants /Legal heirs

of the deceased Sakkubai

[Cause title accepted vide order dated 03.01.2006 made in

C.M.P.No.18182 of 2005 in S.A SR No.88767 of 2003]

versus

Rajakumari

… Respondent/Appellant/Plaintiff

PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil

Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2000

made in A.S.No.198 of 1993 on the file of the learned

Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur, reversing the judgment and decree

dated 23.12.1992 made in O.S.No.233 of 1990 on the file of the

learned District Munsif, Jayankondam.

For Appellants : Mr.C.Vediappan

for Mr.S.Mani

For Respondent : No Appearance

J U D G M E N T

This Second Appeal is focused as against the judgment and

decree dated 19.01.2000 passed in A.S.No.198 of 1993 by the

learned Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur, reversing the judgment and

decree dated 23.12.1992 in O.S.No.233 of 1990 passed by the

learned District Munsif, Jayankondam.

2.The suit is for declaration, declaring that the plaintiff

is the absolute owner of the suit schedule property and for

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

permanent injunction, restraining the defendants in interfering

with the plaintiff's peaceful possession of the suit property.

3.For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties are

referred to, as per their litigative status before the trial

Court.

4.The laconic averments made in the plaint, are as follows:

[i]

The suit schedule property measuring an extent of

0.04½ cents is a portion of the land situated on the eastern

side of 76 cents comprised in Survey No.309/7 originally belongs

to one Samy Naidu. He purchased the said property in the year

1957 from one Mottaiah Padayachi. Afterwards, on 15.04.1978, he

sold out the said property to the plaintiff. Ever since from the

date of purchase, the plaintiff is in the possession and

enjoyment of the suit schedule property. For the suit schedule

property, patta in Serial No.276 stands in the name of the

plaintiff's husband. On the eastern side of plaintiff's

property, the defendants are having the land in Survey No.309/9.

[ii] Originally, the land owned by the plaintiff is in

the form of 2 feet height than the defendants' land. In between

the plaintiff and the defendants land, number of country trees

are existed. Those trees are maintained by the plaintiff. Now,

the defendants are attempted to encroach the property owned by

the plaintiff. On 15.07.1990, the defendants cut down the trees

found in the border line.

[iii]

The property measuring an extent of 0.04½

cents was marked in the plaint plan as EBCF. The entire land

owned by the plaintiff was shown as ABCD. Now, the defendants

cut down the trees found in BC area. In respect to the suit

property, the defendants perfected the title by adverse

possession also. Hence, it would be necessary to declare that

the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit schedule

property and also it is necessary to restrain the defendants in

interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession. Hence, the

suit.

5.The case of the first defendant, as averred in the written

statement, is as follows:

[i]

The EBCF portion shown in the plaint plan and the

adjoining land situated on the eastern side, measuring an extent

of 1 acre 36 cents belongs to this defendant. In the year 1966

itself, the first defendant and his brothers sold out the same

to the second defendant. The first defendant is not a necessary

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

party for the present suit. The plaintiff is liable to pay the

compensato