IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 22.05.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.KALAIMATHI S.A.No.1290 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013

1.Devadass

2.Mekala ... Appellants/Defendants Vs.

Kanagasabhai ... Respondent/Plaintiff This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. to set aside the decree and Judgment dated 24.08.2012 passed in A.S.No.65 of 2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kancheepuram, reversing the Judgment and decree dated 24.09.2010 passed in O.S.No.76 of 2007 by the District Munsif Court cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthiramerur.

For Appellants : Mr.S.D.S.Phillip For Respondent : Mr.B.Srinivasan

JUDGMENT

This second appeal has been preferred by the defendants No.1 and

2 against the Judgment and Decree dated 24.08.2012 passed by the Sub Court, Kancheepuram in A.S.No.65 of 2010.

2. Parties are indicated as per their litigative status and ranking before the Trial Court.

3.According to the plaintiff, Mr.Kanagarsabai S/o.Manickam Naicker, the suit property originally belonged to Angamuthu naicker. He got the suit property through oral partition that took place between him and his brother, Manickam Naicker. Angamuthu Naicker had two sons - Ramasamy Naicker and Durai. Durai died leaving his three sons, 1. D.Kumar, 2. D.Ekambaram, 3. D.Devaraj. The suit property was in possession and enjoyment of the said Angamuthu Naicker. After his death, his two sons namely Ramasamy and Durai were in joint possession of the suit property.

3.1. After the death of the above said Durai, Ramasamy along with the three sons of Durai were in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property. They jointly sold the suit property to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed, dated 19.06.2007 and placed him in possession thereof. Thereafter, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by stocking manure. The plaintiff in order to construct a house has completed the foundation till ground level.

3.2.The defendants have no manner of right or title, interest or possession in respect of the suit property. As they inimically trespassed towards the purchased suit property of the plaintiff and in competition with them on 01.07.2007 attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, the plaintiff warned the defendants from trespassing upon the suit property, and sent a lawyer notice dated 04.07.2007. Despite the receipt of notice, the defendants did not issue any reply. As the defendants were threatening to trespass into the suit property which is in possession of the plaintiff, the suit for relief of declaration of title and for permanent injunction came to be filed.

4. Contending contra, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 would inter-alia state that the schedule of property is not correctly described in the plaint. The plaintiff has purchased the property very recently on 19.06.2007. The alleged vendors namely, Ramasamy and the legal heirs of Durai had no right to sell the suit property to the plaintiff. The sale deed which is created in favour of the plaintiff is a self-serving document. No other document is filed to assert the possession of the plaintiff's father. The suit property is a natham site. The defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for a long period by constructing thatched house. In recognition of the defendants' possession of the suit property, the Government allotted the suit land to the defendants for building house under Group Housing Scheme (Thoguppu Veedu Thittam), Village Panchayat levied tax for the superstructure from the first defendant. There is no cause of action for the suit. The allegation of the plaintiff is that he has completed construction, put up foundation and he is in possession and enjoyment of 0.12 cents with boundaries in east by Manickam Naicker property, west by Kanagasabai Naicker's property, north by street and south by Vedhagiri's property. The first defendant has constructed the foundation measuring east-west