IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 15.10.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

1. Ramalingam (deceased)

2. Munusamy

3. Muthulakshmi

4. Kandan

5. Kandhavel

6. Kavitha (Appellants 3 to 6 are brought on record as LRs of deceased 1^st appellant vide order of court dated

04.01.2018 made in C.M.P.Nos.530 to 532 of 2011)

Appellants Vs Kuppirusan (deceased)

2. M.Govindhammal 3. K.Parandhamman (Respondents 2 and 3 are brought on record as LRs of the sole respondent vide order of court dated 05.02.2018 in C.M.P.Nos. 533 to 535 of 2011)

Respondents PRAYER:

Second Appeal filed under Sec.100 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the Judgement and Decree in A.S.No.77 of 1994 on the file of Addl. District Judge at Villupuram dated 17.09.1997 in reversing the Judgement and Decree in O.S.No.956 of 1990 on the file of Addl. District Munsif, Villupuram dated 23.12.1993.

For Appellants: Mrs.V.Srimathi For Respondents: Mr.N.Suresh

JUDGMENT

Challenging the reversal findings of the first appellate court held in A.S.No. 77 of 1994 dated 17.09.1997 by the Addl. District Judge, Villupuram arising out of trial court findings held in O.S.No.956 of 1990 dated 23.12.1993 on the file of Addl. District Munsif, Villupuram, the defendants have preferred this Second Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are denoted as per the ranking in the suit.

3. Brief facts of the case is as follows :-

The plaintiff and one Thiru Rangasamy, i.e. the defendants father are brothers. As Thiru Rangasamy, who was the elder brother, the suit properties were purchased in his name and he had executed a usufructuary mortgage deed on 17.04.1959 in favour of one Sanyasi gounder, in which the plaintiff claimed that Rangasamy had conceded the right of plaintiff in the suit property. The very reading of the boundaries would show that the defendants or their father had no right in the suit properties belonging to the plaintiff, but on assuming that he has right over the suit property, he had executed a mortgage deed on 14.11.1968 in favour of one Appadurai, in which the defendants father was the attestor to the said mortgage deed. Subsequently, the socalled mortgage deed was assigned to one Chinnaiyan in 1974 and the plaintiff had discharged the debt, thereby establishing his right as he is the absolute owner of suit property and taken absolute possession of the property and the defendants are estopped from questioning his title. However, without any iota of right, the defendants have attempted to cause interference. Hence, the plaintiff had issued a notice on 09.02.1990, for which a reply notice dated 20.03.1990 was received containing false allegations. Moreover, the defendants having admitted the partition between plaintiff and Rangasamy, they have averred that the northern 0.07 cents in the 1^st item alone was allotted to their father and the entire second item belonged to his father. Therefore, the plaintiff came forward with a suit for declaration and for recovery of possession and also for mesne profits.

4.The defendants have contested the suit stating that suit properties were originally purchased in the name of Rangasamy for the benefit of both Rangasamy and the plaintiff and in the oral partition held between them about four years prior to the plaintiff's marriage, in respect of 1^st item of property, northern extent of 0.07 cents out of 0.14 cents in Survey No.7/8 was allotted to the share of defendants father and southern extent of 0.07 cents was allotted to the plaintiff. Eversince they are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the same. As regards 2^nd item of 0.36 cents in S.No.89/26, it did not belong to joint family, on the other hand, it was the self acquired property of Rangasamy, who purchased 0.72 cents after the partition. After his death, the defendants are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the same, however in an oral partition between the defendants and his brother, the 2^nd item felt to the share of defendants brother, t