IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 23.10.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA S.A. No.634 of 2012

1.V.Indira

2.B.Varalakshmi

3.N.Kowsalya

4.V.Bharathi ... Appellants Vs.

C.Radhakrishnan ... Respondent Prayer:Second Appeal filed under Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 100 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree made in A.S. No.39 of 2011 dated 07.02.2012 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, which was in the nature of confirming the order and decree made in O.S. No.270 of 2008 dated 28.06.2011 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Judge, Tindivanam.

For appellants : Mr.N.Kathiresan For respondent : No appearance

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal has been filed by the appellants against the judgment and decree made in A.S. No.39 of 2011 dated 07.02.2012 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S. No.270 of 2008 dated 28.06.2011 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Judge, Tindivanam.

2.The appellants are the plaintiffs. The suit in O.S. No.270 of 2008 has been filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant for claiming the relief of permanent injunction. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and the first appeal in A.S. No.39 of 2011 preferred by the plaintiffs was also got dismissed by confirming the judgment of the Trial Court.

3.The short facts pleaded by the plaintiffs in their plaint are as follows:

a)The plaintiffs are the owners of a larger extent of land measuring 5 acres and 47 cents. The above property was acquired by the first plaintiff through purchase on various dates by virtue of various Sale Deeds. The first plaintiff had executed a Deed of Exchange to an extent of 3 acres and

0.96 cents to some third parties in the year 1984. The vendor of the first plaintiff had executed a Sale Deed in favour of one Angamuthu Naicker, S/o.Govindasay Naicker on the same date. A Deed of Exchange was executed on 24.04.2001 between the first plaintiff and Angamuthu Naicker. Pursuant to the Deed of Exchange and subsequent to the division of properties in the family of the husband of the first plaintiff, a land measuring 0.59 cents in Survey Number 4/6 was settled in favour of the first plaintiff by her husband. So, the first plaintiff became entitled to a total extent of 5 acres and 47 cents, which is inclusive of the property settled in her favour by her husband;

b)The above property has been settled in favour of plaintiffs 2 to 4, who are the daughters of the first plaintiff, by the first plaintiff under a Settlement Deed dated 15.11.2007. The plaintiffs 2 to 4 sold an extent of 1 acre and 0.51 cents in favour of the defendant on 26.11.2007. However, the defendant is trying to interfere with the portion of the suit property, which has not been sold to him, but he was in enjoyment of the portion of the property of plaintiffs 2 to 4;

c)The defendant claimed that the plaintiffs had been in enjoyment of

0.91 cents in excess of their purchase and hence, 0.45 cents from such excess lands, should be given to him along with the portion of the property sold to him. The plaintiffs did not agree for the same. Upon examination, the plaintiffs came to understand that in the Sale Deed executed by Sanjeevi Gounder in favour of Angamuthu Naicker, there were some typographical errors in the corresponding survey numbers of the schedule of property. However, the mistakes were rectified in the subsequent assessment by granting patta. Hence, the subsequent transactions made by the first plaintiff were on the strength of the new survey number assigned in the patta granted to her;

d)Despite the plaintiffs’ tried to persuade the defendant to understand the ground reality, he did not listen. He started to damage the standing crops in the suit property in their absence. Hence, a police complaint was given on 15.12.2007 and on which, a C.S.R. number was given in C.S.R. No.0439187 dated 16.12.2007. When the police enquired, the defendant gave an undertaki