IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 25.11.2025 Coram:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL and M.P.No.1 of 2015 ---

Balakrishnan .. Appellant Vs.

1. Kaliammal

2. Dhandapani (died)

3. Lakshmi

4. Porkilai (died)

5. Rajendiran

6. Silambarasan

7. Bharani

8. Muniammal

9. Prema

10. Mahalakshmi

11. Prakash

12. Annandan

13. Anjali (Respondents 9 to 11 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased second respondent/Dhandapani)

(Respondents 12 and 13 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased fourth respondent/Porkilai, vide order dated 09.07.2025 made in C.M.P.Nos.12695, 12710 and 12699 of 2020 in S.A.No.133 of 2015 and CMP.Nos.12709, 12702 and 12707 of 2020)

.. Respondents Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree, dated 22.09.2011 passed in A.S.No.17 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Sub-Judge at Pondicherry, confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.12.2009 passed in O.S.No.79 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry.

For appellants : M/s.G.Sumithra For respondents: M/s.S.Gowsik Sundar for RR-3, 5 to 8 and 9 to 13 R-1 notice served - No appearance RR-2 and 4 - died JUDGMENT This Second Appeal has been preferred as against the judgment and decree, dated 22.09.2011 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry in A.S.No.17 of 2010, confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.12.2009 passed in O.S.No.79 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif Court, Pondicherry.

2. The appellant (plaintiff) has filed Original Suit No.79 of 2006 for the relief of permanent injunction as against the respondents herein and the suit was dismissed, as against which, the First Appeal was filed by the appellant and the first appellate Court also dismissed the First Appeal and as against the same, the unsuccessful plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal before this Court.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are ranked in the trial Court as plaintiff and defendants.

4. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:

The suit property originally belonged to one Rathinammal being the mother of the plaintiff and she purchased the property from one Balakrishnan by way of sale deed, dated 23.03.1955. The said Rathinammal died and after her demise, the plaintiff's father, namely Parthasarathy has executed a settlement deed, dated 26.04.1996 in favour of his son and the brother of the plaintiff, i.e. Lakshmanan in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff was given 317 Sq.Meters of "Manai" consisting of brick built house, comprised in Cadastre No.442/1 and Re-survey No.159/35, Kanagachetty Kullam Village in Village No.20, Kalapet Revenue Village, Pondicherry, by virtue of settlement deed, dated 29.03.1996 by his father. The said property settled in favour of the plaintiff is situated on the Southern side of the schedule mentioned property. The plaintiff's brother, namely Lakshmanan, was employed as Senior Officer (Administration) at Chemplast Sanmar Limited, Chennai and he had leased out the schedule mentioned property in favour of the plaintiff and through the lease deed, dated 20.11.2001 for a period of 11 months on a monthly rent of Rs.300/-. Thereafter, again a fresh lease deed was executed on 12.02.2004 for another eleven moths' period on enhanced rent of Rs.450/- and the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned property as a tenant and the first defendant, who is the adjacent land owner of the Northern side of the schedule mentioned property, attempted to encroach upon the original schedule mentioned property. The defendants 2 to 4 and 8 are the son and daughters of the first defendant and the fifth defendant is the son-in-law of the first defendant and the sixth and seventh defendants are the grand-sons of the first defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff had filed the suit for permanent injunction as against the defendants.

5. The case of the defendants is that they have denied the title of t