S.A.No.1553 of 2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 05.10.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

S.A.No.1553 of 2004

1. A.Angatharasan

2. A. Anbarasan

...Appellants

Vs

Dhandayuthapani

... Respondent

Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C to set aside

the Judgment dated 27.02.2003 passed in A.S.No.23 of 1998 on the file of

the Subordinate Court, Dharmapuri confirming the order passed in

O.S.No.415 of 1985 dated 19.02.1998 on the file of the District Munsif,

Harur and pass orders

For Appellants

:

Mr.P.Jagadeesan

For Respondent

:

M/s.S.Sudarshan

1/9

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

S.A.No.1553 of 2004

JUDGMENT

The Appellants 1 and 2 herein are defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.415

of 1985. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the first Appellant

that the first appellant A.Angatharasan died and inspite of his best efforts,

he was not able to get the details of the legal heirs of the first appellant to

implead them. Therefore, recording the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the first appellant, the appeal filed by the first appellant is

dismissed as abated as against first appellant. Therefore, this Court is taking

up the appeal as against the second appellant.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein

according to their litigative status as mentioned before the Court below in

O.S.No.415 of 1985.

3. The brief avernment of the plaint:-

The plaintiff would submit that the property morefully described in

the schedule originally belonged to one Radhakrishna Chettiyar who was

2/9

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

S.A.No.1553 of 2004

the grand-father of the plaintiff, by virtue of a sale deed dated 12.12.1928.

After his demise, his only son Iyengar Chettiyar qua the father of the

plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the same in his own right.

After the demise of the Iyengar Chettiyar, the plaintiff and other family

members inherited the suit property and they are in actual physical

possession and enjoyment of the same. This plaintiff submits that the

property adjacent to the northern side of the suit property belongs to the 3^rd

defendant. The defendants 1 and 2 are actually residing in same street,

however away from the suit property. According to the plaintiff, taking

advantage of the absence of the 3^rd defendant, the defendants 1 and 2

frequently came to the suit property and attempted to trespass into the suit

property. According to the plaintiff the defendants 1 and 2 have no right in

the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit for

the relief of the permanent injunction and delivery of vacant possession.

4. Brief averments in the written statement:

The defendants disputed the contentions raised by the plaintiffs and

3/9

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

S.A.No.1553 of 2004

sought for a prayer that they have perfected title by way of adverse

possession to the red marked portion. It is also the submission of the

defendants 1 and 2 that the plaintiffs or their men have no right or title to

interfere with their possession in the suit schedule property. Hence, the

defendants prayed to dismiss the suit.

5.Documents and Evidence

The plaintiff have marked 8 documents as Ex.A1 to A8 and has

examined one witness and he himself was examined as P.W.1. On behalf of

the defendants, no documents was marked. However, the second defendant

was examined as D.W.1.

6. Findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court

After hearing the oral and documentary evidences, the Trial Court

decreed the suit with a finding that the defendants have no right over the

suit property.

4/9

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

S.A.No.1553 of 2004

7. Aggrieved by the same, the Defendants 1 and 2 have filed the first

appeal in A.S.No.23 of 1998. However, the First Appellate Court has also

confirmed the findings of the