IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11-11-2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

1. S.DEVADOSS (died)

S/o Swamidoss, No.41, Ambedkar St, East, C.S.I, Surampatti, Erode 638 009.

2. D. Jayamary W/o. Late. S. Devadoss, No.41, Ambedkar St (East) CSI Street, Surampatti, Erode 638 009.

3. KIRUBAI D/o. Late. S. Devadoss, No.41, Ambedkar St (East) CSI Street, Surampatti, Erode 638 009.

4. D. Rajan S/o. Late. S. Devadoss, No.41, Ambedkar St (East) CSI Street, Surampatti, Erode 638 009.

5. D. Kumar S/o. Late. S. Devadoss, No.41, Ambedkar St (East) CSI Street, Surampatti, Erode 638 009.

[ Sole appellant died Appellants 2 to 5 brought on record as LRs of the deceased sole appellant i.e S.Devadoss vide Court order dt 21/022024 made in CMPs 20651,20652 and

20654/2023 in SA 905/2010 (GAMJ)]

..Appellant(s)

Vs

1. R.Shanmugam S/o Ramaswamy, No.40, Ambedkar St, East, C.S.I.St, Surampatti, Erode 638 009.

2. S.Yovan S/o Samidoss, Ambedkar St, East, E.S.I, St, Surampatti, Erode 638 009.

..Respondent(s)

Prayer:

This second appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. Against the judgment and decree in AS.No. 107 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Court, Erode dated 31.07.2008 reversing the judgment and decree in OS.No.421 of

2006 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Erode dated 27.04.2007.

For Appellant(s): M/S. G. JEREMIAH For Respondent(s): V.S. KESAVAN FOR R1

JUDGMENT

The plaintiffs are the appellants. The suit has been filed for the relief of declaration and delivery of possession. The trial court decreed the suit and the first appeal preferred by the 1st defendant; the judgement of the trial court was set aside and the appeal was allowed. Aggrieved over that the plaintiff has filed this second appeal.

2.The short facts pleaded in the plaint are, in brief:

The suit property belongs to the father of the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant's father, Samydass, a patta has been issued in his name in patta No. 87/71 dated 26.9.1971. The plaintiff's father built a tiled house having the vacant site towards the southern side. In the vacant site he has also put up a thatched house and is residing there with his family. The 1st defendant is the son of the plaintiff's father's brother. The plaintiff and the 2nd defendant are the sons of the deceased Samydass. When the plaintiff's father was alive, the 1st defendant had approached him in the year 1987 and sought permission to reside in the suit property. Considering the family circumstances of the 1st defendant, the plaintiff's father allowed the 1st defendant to reside in the suit property, and he was residing in the suit property up to the year 1992, and thereafter he vacated. Again in the year 1997, the 1st defendant approached the plaintiff's father; the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant are residing in the suit property. 2.1. Once again the 1st defendant's request was considered. The 1st defendant is residing in the suit property only out of permission. As the 1st defendant, with the help of his uncle, had managed to get a property tax assessment in his name without producing any title deed for the suit property. The 1st defendant has got no manner of right to do so. The plaintiff and the 2nd defendant have to be declared as the owners of the suit property because they are the only legal heirs of the deceased father (Samydass). The 1st defendant has got nothing to do with the entire suit property. The plaintiff had already filed one suit against the 1st defendant in OS.No.376 of 2003. In the said property, he omitted to give correct particulars, and on that ground, the above suit got dismissed. The plaintiff approached the 1st defendant to vacate the suit property within two days. But the 1^st defendant did not vacate and took up the quarrel. So the plaintiff has filed the suit for seeking the relief of declaration that the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant alone are the owners of the suit property along with recovery of possession from the 1st defendant.

3. The 1st defendant's written statemen