IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 11.11.2025 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

1.Sjamtja Devi, W/o.C.G.Jain

2.G.C.Jain, S/o.Gulan Jain Both residing at No.

Bangalore Main Raod, Sunguvar Chatiram, Sriperumbudur Taluk. ... Appellants / Defendants Vs K.A.Abdul Jabar Ravuthar, S/o.Syed Ahmed, Residing at No.37-50, Bangalore High Road, Sunguvarchatiram, Sriperumbudur Taluk. ... Respondent/plaintiff Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram in A.S.No.85 of 2007 dated 31.10.2008 reversing the judgment and decree of the District Munsif, Kancheepuram, made in O.S.No.463 of 2003 dated 16.08.2007.

For Appellants : Mr.K.M.Balaji For Respondent : No appearance

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram in A.S.No.85 of 2007 dated 31.10.2008 reversing the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Kancheepuram, made in O.S.No.463 of 2003 dated 16.08.2007.

2. Heard Mr.K.M.Balaji, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and perused the materials available on record. There is no representation for the respondent.

3. The appellants are the defendants. The suit has been filed for the relief of permanent injunction. The trial Court dismissed the suit and on the first appeal preferred by the plaintiff, the first appellate Court allowed the first appeal and reversed the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved over that, the defendants have preferred the present second appeal.

4. The short facts pleaded in the plaint are as follows:

The plaintiff, who is the owner of the suit mentioned property has acquired the same from his father Shayed Ahmed Ravuthr, in pusuant to the settlement deed 12.02.1991. Prior to him, his father was the owner of the suit property. After the settlement, the plaintiff had been in possession and enjoyment of the property and he had also obtained patta in his name. The defendants, who have no matter of right in the suit property are attempting to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. Hence, he had filed the suit for permanent injunction.

5.1 The written statement in brief are as follows:

The suit is not maintainable as it is hit under section 11 of Code of Civil Procedure [barred by resjudicata]. The defendants had purchased the property in Survey No.37/5A to an extent of 1.02 acres and Survey No.37/5D to an extent of 0.83 cents with the defined boundaries under the registered sale deed dated 24.8.1982 from one Ahmed Ravutha and Abdul Jabar, the plaintiff and Abdul Gaffoor for Rs.37,000/-. The vendors have not retained any portion in the said two survey numbers. To the west of the two survey numbers, there was a channel running and it was not in use. After purchase, the defendants measured the properties covered by the sale deeds within four boundaries. At that time, they came to know that there is excess of land within the measurement. At the time of measurement, his vendors were also present. The vendors have got no manner of right to sell the excess extent found at the time of survey. After the defendants had purchased the suit properties on 24.08.1982, they had filed a suit against the vendors by including one Veerabathira Naicker, who was about to purchase a portion of the suit property from the plaintiff. As the plaintiff have attempted to sell the excess land found during survey, the defendants had filed a suit against the vendors by including the proposed purchaser Veerabathira Naicker in O.S.No.597 of 1986. The said suit was decreed as prayed for.

5.2 The plaintiff and Abdul Gafoor had filed CMP.No.4 of 1992 to condone the delay in filing an appeal against the decree dated 21.09.1990. The said petition was dismissed on 23.09.1993. Further, a revision petition has been filed challenging the Order passed in the above petition. During the pendency of the above