IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 27.11.2025 PRONOUNCED ON: 04.12.2025 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN S.A.No.494 of 2000 Veerabadrappa ... Appellants Vs.

1.S.G.Gope Gowdu

2.G.Kempaiah

3.M.Munia Gowdu

4.Soodama ... Respondents PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgement and decree dated 11.12.1996 in A.S.No.151 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Hosur, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 18.03.1996 in O.S.No.691 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif, Denkanikottai.

For Appellant : Mr.V.Sekar for Mr.C.R.Muralidharan For Respondents

1 & 2 : Mr.G.Vigneswaran for Mr.V.Nicholas For Respondents

3 & 4 : No appearance

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff is the appellant in the second appeal. He challenges the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge at Hosur in A.S.No.151 of 1996 dated 11.12.1996 in confirming the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif at DenkaniKottai in O.S.No.691 of 1993 dated 18.03.1996.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their ranks in the suit.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the property situated in S.No.44/2, Doddamati Village, DenkaniKottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District belonged to two brothers, viz., Kempe Gowdu and Munia Gowdu. The extent of their holdings being 1.35 acres. The defendants are the descendants of Kempe Gowdu. The plaintiff pleaded that Munia Gowdu married one Devamma and begot a female child, Kenjamma. Kenjamma married one Somalingappa. Munia Gowdu had passed away about 70 years prior to the presentation of the plaint. He pleaded that out of the 1.35 acres, 67 ½ cents each were enjoyed by Kempe Gowdu and Munia Gowdu.

4. Of the 67 ½ cents, which came to the hands of Munia Gowdu, was enjoyed by Devamma. Thereafter, by way of a settlement deed dated 15.06.1950, she settled the same in favour of her daughter, Kenjamma and her son-in-law, Somalingappa. The said Kenjamma and Somalingappa sold the property in favour of the plaintiff on 07.04.1983. As the plaintiff's title was being disputed by the defendants and his possession was being disturbed, he cameforth with a suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction.

5. The defendants pleaded that the property belonged to Kempe Gowdu and that, he had been in possession and enjoyment of the property, by mutating the revenue records in his favour, for several years. Thereafter, the defendants have been in possession of the same. They pleaded that the plaintiff does not have any right, title, or interest over the property. They added that Kenjamma was not the only daughter of Munia Gowdu and Devamma and there were two other children, from whom the plaintiff had not purchased the property and hence, the sale is not valid.

6. On the basis of these pleadings, the learned Trial Judge framed the following issues:

“1/ r/be/44-2?bjhl;lk";rp 1/35 Vf;fh;

tp!;jPuzj;jpy; Knd ft[Lf;F ghfk; cz;lh>

2/ bfk;ng ft[L gy tUl';fSf;F Kd;g[ ghfk;

gphpj;Jf; bfhz;L Kndft[L ghfj;jpw;F 67 1-2 brd;l;

tH';fg;gltpy;iyah>

3/ Knd ft[L kidtp njtk;kh mth; kfs;

bgahpYk;. Mth; kUkfs; bgahpYk; 67 1-2 brd;l; r/vz;/44-2?y; 15/06/1950?y; Vw;gl;l jhd brl;oy;bkd;l;

bry;yj;jf;fjpy;iyah>

4/ gpujpthjpfs; jhrpy;jhh;. njd;fdpf;nfhl;il Kd;g[ nky; KiwaPL bra;J mJ tprhuiz bra;ahky; js;Sgo bra;ag;gl;l gpwF 28?10?1992?y; cjtp Ml;rpah; XNh; Kd;g[ mg;gPy; bra;J mJ js;Sgo bra;ag;gl;lJ vd;W brhy;tJ cz;ikjhdh>

5/ thjp jhth brhj;jpy; 1983 Kjy; ve;j ,il";rYk; ,y;yhky; bjhlh;e;J mDgtpj;J tUfpwhuh>

6. gpujpthjpfs; 1 Kjy; 4 jhth brhj;jpy;

gpuntrpf;f Kaw;rpj;jhh;fsh>

7/ jhth brhj;J gpujpthjpfspd; g{h;tPf brhj;Jf;fsh. mth;fSk; mth;fsJ K:jhijah;fSk; jhth brhj;jpy; gy tUl';fshf mDgtpj;J te;jhh;fsh>

8/ gpujpthjpfs; jhth brhj;ij gy tUl';fshf mDgtpj;J te;jjd; nghpy; mth;fSf;F vjphpil mDgtk; rpj;jpj;J tpl;ljh>

9/ thjpf;F vd;d ghpfhuk; fpilf;Fk;> ”

7. On the side of the plaintiff, he examined himself and four other witnesses as PW1 to PW5. He marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A13. On the side of the defend