S.A.No.1481 of 2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 16.03.2023

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN

S.A.No.1481 of 2008

and

M.P.No.1 of 2009

1.Nanjammal

2.Annadurai

3.Rajathi

...Appellants.

Vs.

1.Kavundammal

2.Rathinasamy

3.Thangavel

4.Aruchamy

...Respondents.

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

Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 09.01.2006 made in

A.S.No.152 of 2005 on the file of the Second Additional Subordinate Judge,

Coimbatore in reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 05.08.2005 and

made in O.S.No.723 of 2000 on the file of the Second Additional District

Munsif Court, Coimbatore.

For Appellants

:

Mr.N.Damodaran

For Respondents :

Mr.T.M.Naveen for

Mr..K.P.Jotheeswaran

1/8

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

S.A.No.1481 of 2008

JUDGMENT

The plaintiffs are the appellants. They had been presented O.S.No.723

of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif, Coimbatore. According to them,

the A & C schedule properties are the absolute properties of one Palanisamy

Gounder. This, Palanisamy Gounder, is the husband of Nanjammal the first

plaintiff and the father of the second plaintiff, Annadurai and the third

plaintiff Rajathi. The first defendant Kavundammal is the sister of the

deceased Palanisamy Gounder. Her children are Ratinasamy, Thangavel and

Aruchamy, the defendants 2 to 4. The plaintiff alleged that Palanisamy had

shifted from Coimbatore to Kalampalayam and had permitted

Kavundammal to take possession of the C Schedule property as a

permissive occupant. Palanisamy passed away in the year 1997. The

plaintiffs came over and asked for return of the property. The defendant and

her children refused to hand over possession. Hence, insofar as the C

schedule property is concerned, the plaintiff had presented a suit for

declaration of title and recovery of possession. It is further case that insofar

as A & B schedule properties are concerned, they are vacant sites and as it

belongs to them, that is, A schedule absolute property of Palanisamy and B

schedule is the ancestral property of Palanisamy, the defendants do not have

2/8

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

S.A.No.1481 of 2008

right over the same and therefore sought for permanent injunction.

2.

On service of summons in the suit, the defendant entered

appearance and filed a detailed written statement. According to them, they

are the owners of the property situated in Survey No.62/3B-62/3I and that

the defendants are no way connected with Survey No.64/1. To substantiate

their possession, they had filed Natham Patta, Tax Receipts and Electricity

Bills. The parties on the basis of these pleadings went for trial and the Trial

Court framed the following issues:-

"(1)thjp nfhUk; tpsk;g[if kw;Wk; RthjPdg;

ghpfhu';fs; mtUf;F fpilf;fj;jf;fjh?

(2)thjp

nfhUk;

epue;ju

jila[Wj;Jf;fl;lisg;

ghpfhuk;

mtUf;F

fpilf;fj;jf;fjh?

(3)ntW vd;d ghpfhuk;?"

3.

The Plaintiffs had filed Exs.A1 to A5 namely the House Tax

Receipts and examined Nachamal as PW1. The second and the third

defendants examined themselves as DW1 and another witness by name

Krishnasamy as DW3. They filed totally 11 documents.

4.

After Trial, the Learned Trial Judge decreed the suit on the

3/8

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

S.A.No.1481 of 2008

ground that the plaintiffs have filed House Tax Receipts and since the

defendants did not make any claim over Survey No.64/1, had decreed the

suit in its entirety.

5.

Aggrieved by this decree the respondents herein, preferred

AS.No.152 of 2005. The learned II Additional Sub-Ordinate Judge at

Coimbatore allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. He found that the

plaintiffs had not filed any title deeds to the suit property but had only filed

House Tax Receipts and further held that the plaintiffs had not localized the

property, by appointing an Advocate