IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04.11.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI and C.M.P.No.19071 of 2025

1. Velusamy @ Raju Lakshmiammal (died)

2. Rukmani

3. Thayar 4. Sasthiri

5. Amsaveni ...Appellants/Defendants Vs.

Arumugavelpillai (Died)

P.Murugesan (Died)

1. M.Vishnukarthikeyan

2. M.Gowtham 3. A.Niraimadhi

4. P.Rathinam ...Respondents/Plaintiffs

5. M. Parvathavarthini PRAYER:- This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to set aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.30 of 2023 on the file of Sub Court, Udumalpet, dated 27.08.2024, modifying the judgment and decree in O.S.No.303 of 2005 on the file of District Munsif Court, Udumalpet dated 03.10.2023.

For Appellants : Ms.Hema Sampath Senior Counsel for Mr.B.Kumarasamy For Respondents : Mr.P.Valliappan Senior Counsel for Mr.K.S.Karthick Rajan

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal is preferred by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2024 passed in A.S.No.30 of 2023 by the Sub Court, Udumalpet.

2. Parties are indicated herein as per their litigative status and rankings before the Trial Court.

3. According to the plaintiffs, the properties (A and B schedule properties shown in the plaint) originally belonged to one Arumugam Pillai, who is the paternal grandfather of the 1^st plaintiff. After the death of the Arumugam Pillai, the suit properties came to the hands of his son Muthusamy Pillai, who is the father of the 1^st plaintiff herein. After the death of Muthusamy Pillai, the 1^st plaintiff has become the absolute owner of the suit properties and he was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. On 23.03.2007, the plaintiffs no.2 to 4 purchased the suit properties from the 1^st plaintiff through registered sale deed and pursuant to the same, plaintiffs no.2 to 4 have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

3.1. Revenue records have been mutated and the suit properties stand in the name of purchasers namely, plaintiffs no.2 to 4. The defendants were the farm labourers worked under the 1^st plaintiff to look after the land. The 1^st defendant is the father of the 2^nd defendant. Both resided in the farm workers quarters in the suit 'B' schedule property. The defendants and their family members were doing agricultural work in the 'A' schedule property by staying in the 'B' schedule property. Due to some unwanted activities, the defendants drew dissatisfaction of the 1^st plaintiff, they were asked to vacate 'B' Schedule property and to quit work. The defendants have no right over the suit property. Tax assessment and EB service connections were also changed in the name of the purchasers.

3.2. On 02.06.2005, when the 1^st plaintiff entered into the suit 'A'

schedule property, the defendants attempted to prevent him from entering into the 'A' schedule property. Hence the suit was filed by the 1^st plaintiff.

3.3. During the pendency of the suit, the 1^st plaintiff died and the 5^th plaintiff is the legal heir of the 1^st plaintiff. After the death of the 2^nd plaintiff, his legal heirs namely, plaintiffs no.6 and 7 were impleaded as legal heirs. The 1^st defendant died during the pendency of the suit and defendants no.3 to 7 have been brought on record as legal heirs of the deceased 1^st defendant. The 3^rd defendant died during the pendency of the suit and his legal heirs defendants no.2, 4 to 7 have been brought on record. The defendants have no right over the suit property and they are not entitled the suit 'B' schedule property and they are entitled for damages for the unlawful occupation over the 'B' schedule properties. Hence this suit.

4. Per contra, the defendants no.1 and 2 would contend that the 1^st plaintiff, who was in possession of the suit properties as his only son is not correct. The suit properties are in actual possession and enjoyment of the defendants for the past several years, since the defendants are the cultivating tenants of the suit properties. The allegation that the def