IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03.09.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI Valliammal ...Appellant/Defendant Vs.

Porkilai (Died)

1. Elumalai

2. Mangavaram ...Respondents/Plaintiffs 2 & 3 PRAYER:- This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, as against the Judgment and Decree dated 24.03.2020 made in A.S.No.15 of 2018 on the file of the learned II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 14.12.2017 passed in O.S.No.52 of 2102 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry.

For Appellant : Mr.S.Madhar Khan For Respondents : Mr.D.Senthil Kumar JUDGMENT This Second Appeal is filed by the defendant against the Judgment and Decree dated 24.03.2020 made in A.S.No.15 of 2018 by the II Additional District Judge, Pondicherry.

2. The parties are indicated herein as per their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. According to the plaintiff, 'A' Schedule property and other two items originally belonged to one Krishnan, son of Thangavelu, the husband of the first plaintiff and father of the plaintiffs No.2 and 3 as per sale deed dated 10.02.1975. Survey Number of 'A' schedule property is not mentioned in the said sale deed but the boundary details are correctly mentioned therein. Since the date of purchase, the first plaintiff's husband Krishnan had been in possession and enjoyment of 'A' schedule property till his life time (died on 01.07.1978). After the life time of her husband Krishnan, the first plaintiff his wife has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property along with other properties. The defendant is the brother's daughter of deceased Krishnan. She was not provided accommodation by her father.

3.1. The first plaintiff permitted the defendant to occupy 'B'

schedule property by putting up a shed in the year 2005. Taking advantage of the same, the defendant was trying to construct a permanent structure in April 2012 and it was resisted by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs lodged complaint before Kalapet Police Station on 25.04.2012. The plaintiffs caused to issue to the defendant legal notice on 27.04.2012, by revoking the permission already granted to the defendant. Despite the receipt of notice, the defendant neither sent a reply, nor handed over the 'B' schedule property to the plaintiff.Hence, the suit.

4. Per contra, the defendant would contend that the suit properties and the entire properties in R.S.No.190/4 in Pillaichavady Revenue Village, belongs to one Amsavalli Thayarammal and her legal heirs, who are the descendants of AnandarangaPillai. The sale deed mentioned in the plaint is a forged one. The plaint 'A' and 'B' schedule properties were in possession and enjoyment of the grand father of the defendant Thangavelu for more than 30 years till his death since 1970. After his death, the defendant's father Solayappan and his brother Krishnan were in possession and enjoyment the suit of properties. 4.1., After the death of her father, the defendant is in continuous possession and enjoyment of plaint 'B' schedule property from 1982. The defendant has obtained electricity connection in the year 1993 which stands in the name of defendant's husband Ramalingam. The plaintiffs have no right at all over the plaint 'B' schedule property.

5. Based on the divergent pleadings, trial Court framed relevant issues.

6. At trial, to substantiate plaint details, on the plaintiff side, two witnesses have been examined and twenty three documents were marked. Ex.A1 dated 10.02.1975 is the certified copy of sale deed executed in favour of first plaintiff husband-Krishnan, S/o Thangavelu in respect of 'A' schedule property and other two items. On the defendant side - Valliyammal, two witnesses were examined and twenty six documents were marked. The First Appellate Court has after receipt of the documents in I.A.No.684 of 2019 and marked as Ex.B27 & Ex.B28. Ex.B1 dated 14.10.1976 is the copy of the KudiyiruppuOpp