IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 08.07.2025 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP Second Appeal No.683 of 2010 Rajangam ... Appellant Versus

1.Narayanasamy (Died)

2.Annabakkiyam

3.Pachaiammal 4.Palaniammal

5.Murugan

6.Arumugam

7.Annapoorani

8.Marimuthu

9.Dhanalakshmi ... Respondents [R-1 died. R3 to R9 are brought on record as LRs of the deceased R1 vide Court order dated 28.02.2024 made in C.M.P.Nos.25967, 25969 & 25971 of

2023 in S.A.No.683 of 2010]

PRAYER Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC, against the judgment and decree of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, made in A.S.No.44 of 2008 dated 25.02.2010 in reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Munsif, Ulundurpet, dated 31.10.2006 made in O.S.No.309 of 2005.

For Appellant : Mr.D.Rajasekar For Respondents : M/s.T.Dhanyakumar

J U D G M E N T

This Second Appeal is filed to set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, made in A.S.No.44 of 2008 dated 25.02.2010 in reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Munsif, Ulundurpet, dated 31.10.2006 made in O.S.No.309 of 2005.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as Plaintiff and Defendants as referred in the suit.

3. The averments in the plaint filed by the Plaintiff are as follows:-

The case of the Plaintiff is that the suit property originally belonged to Narayana Padayachi. After the death of Narayana Padayachi, his four sons had partitioned the properties among themselves in the year 1965. Accordingly, each son of Narayana Padayachi had taken possession of his respective share and enjoyed by constructing houses in their share. Accordingly, the suit property had been allotted to the share of Ramakrishnan. The land on the Western side of the suit property measuring same area was allotted to Muthukrishnan. The land on the Eastern side with the same area was also allotted to Kandasami. To the Eastern side of Kandasami's land with the same area had been allotted to Rangasamy. The said Kandasami died without any issues. So the area which was allotted to Kandasami was taken by Rangasamy.

The above said four sons enjoyed according to the allotment carved out by themselves. The above said allotment happened by way of oral partition. Accordingly, Ramakrishnan enjoyed the separate allotted portion along with his other properties. Later on he executed a settlement deed in respect of the said properties in favour of his wife on 16.12.1967. The said Poorani Ammal executed a sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff on 21.07.1989 in respect of the settled property along with some other property. After the purchase of the suit property by the Plaintiff, he constructed a thatched house and mutations were also effected in the name of the Plaintiff and house tax was also paid in the name of the Plaintiff. The Defendants 1 and 2 are the relatives of the Plaintiff. At the request of the Defendants, Plaintiff had permitted them to reside in the suit property till the renovation of their dilapidated house. So the Plaintiff had given permissive possession to the Defendants in respect of the suit property. Thereafter, the Plaintiff demanded to get back the possession. The Defendants refused to surrender the suit property to the Plaintiff. Thereafter, the Plaintiff issued a legal notice on 29.11.2003. Plaintiff also revoked the permission given to the Defendants regarding the suit property. So, the Defendants are mere trespassers to the suit property. Because of the Defendants refusal to surrender the suit property to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was necessitated to file the suit for declaration of title and for possession in respect of the suit property.

4. The brief averments made in the written statement filed by the Defendants are as follows:-

The case of the Defendants is that the allegation contained in the plaint are entirely denied. There has been no oral partition that had taken place betw