IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 10.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V. THAMILSELVI Second Appeal Nos. 544 & 708 of 2007 ---

S.A.No.544 of 2007 :

1.Annamalai(died)

2.A.Jothi

3.A.Balakrishnan

4.A.Mohanraj

5.A.Sudha

6.A.Selvakumari

7.A.Anjalidevi ... Appellants (A1 died, A2 to A7 brought on record as legal heirs of the deceased A1 vide Court order dated 06/04/2022 made in CMP.Nos.18407 and 18409 of 2021 in S.A.No.544 of 2007 (RHJ).

Versus

1.Kanagasabai

2.Appu Padayachi

3.Valli Ammal .. Respondents S.A.No.708 of 2007 :

Kanagasabai ... Appellant Versus

1.Annamalai(died) 2.Appu Padayachi

3.Valliammal

4.A.Jothi

5.A.Balakrishnan

6.A.Mohanraj

7.A.Sudha

8.R.Selvakumari

9.A.Anjalidevi ... Respondents (R1 died, RR4 to 9 are brought on record as legal heirs of the deceased R1 vide Court order dated 03/02/2023 made in CMP.Nos.14159 of 2021 in S.A.No.708 of 2007 (RHJ).

PRAYER in S.A.No.544 of 2007 : Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, prays to set aside the Judgment and decree as made in O.S.No.11 of 2004 dated 31.03.2005, on the file of the District Munsif – cum – Judicial Magistrate, Portonovo, as confirmed in Judgement and decree as made in A.S.No.31 of 2005 dated 29.11.2006, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram.

PRAYER in S.A.No.708 of 2007 : Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.50 of 2005, dated 29.11.2006, on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram in confirming the judgement and decree passed in O.S.No.11 of 2004, dated 31.03.2005, on the file of the Court of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Parangaipattai.

S.A.No.544 of 2007 For A2 to A7 : Mr.S.Vediappan for Mr.R.Karthikeyan For A1 : Died For R1 : Mr.A.Muthukumar For R2 & R3 : No appearance For Appellants : Mr.A.Muthukumar For R4 to R9 : Mr.S.Vediappan for Mr.R.Karthikeyan For R2 & R3 : Ex-parte For R1 : Died

COMMON JUDGMENT

The appellants have preferred these Second Appeals against the Judgment and decree dated 29.11.2006, passed in A.S.Nos. 31 & 50 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chidambaran in confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2005 passed in O.S.No.11 of 2004, on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Parangaipattai.

2. For the purpose of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they are ranked in the suit.

3. Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the plaintiff has preferred S.A. No.708 of 2007, and the first defendant has preferred S.A. No.544 of 2007. Both the appeals arise out of a common judgment.

4. Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff, Kanagasabai, filed a suit seeking a declaration in respect of ‘A’ Schedule and ‘B’ Schedule properties and also prayed for a permanent and mandatory injunction in respect of the ‘B’ Schedule properties, against three defendants. The second and third defendants are the father and sister of the plaintiff respectively. The first defendant is the purchaser of a portion of the suit properties from the third defendant.

5. Before the Trial Court, the first defendant alone contested the suit.

Defendants 2 and 3 remained ex parte. Based on a gift deed executed by his grandmother, as well as an alleged oral gift made by his father, the plaintiff claimed a declaratory right over the suit properties. The first defendant contended that the gift deed executed by the grandmother of the plaintiff had been cancelled. Thereafter, she sold the properties to one Ramakrishnan, from whom the second defendant purchased the properties and subsequently executed a gift deed in favour of his daughter, the third defendant, from whom the first defendant later purchased the same. Thus, the first defendant disputed the title claimed by the plaintiff.

6. Both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. Finally, the Trial Court held that, in respect of Items 2 and 3 in the ‘A’ Schedule, the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and injunction.