IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 01.07.2025 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP Second Appeal No.1349 of 2013 P.Gunasekaran ... Appellant Versus

1. Dhanraj Ramachandran (Died) 2. Mrs. Thamizharasi

3. Mrs.Tamilselvi

4. Malarkodi ... Respondents Prayer:- Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the Judgment and Decree of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur made in A.S.No.111 of 2012 dated 27.11.2012 confirming the Judgment and Decree of the learned District Munsif, Jayankondam made in O.S.No.23 of 2002 dated 28.01.2010.

For Appellants : Mr.P.Valliappan Senior Counsel for Mr.J.Ramakrishnan For Respondents : Mr.S.Subbiah for R1 No Appearance – R2 to R-4

J U D G M E N T

This Second Appeal has been filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree of the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Ariyalur made in A.S.No.111 of 2012 dated 27.11.2012 confirming the Judgment and Decree of the learned District Munsif, Jayankondam made in O.S.No.23 of 2002, dated

28.01.2010.

2. The brief facts, which are necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal, are as follows:-

2.1. The Plaintiff in O.S.No.23 of 2002 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Jayankondam is the Appellant in the Second Appeal. The Plaintiff had purchased the suit property which is an extent of 4 and ½ cents with specific boundaries in Survey No.80/3. The suit property was part of the property in Survey No.80/3 which was originally a zamin land then converted into a Ryotwari land. In the 'A' register, the land in Survey No.80/3 stood in the names of Swaminathan and Marimuthu. Marimuthu owned half portion of the land to an extent of 4 and ½ cents. After his demise, the land was enjoyed by his legal heirs Mehanadhan and Chandrasekaran. The Plaintiff purchased the above 4 and ½ cents of land, which is the western ½ portion, through a registered sale deed dated 22.09.2000. From the date of purchase, the Plaintiff had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The Plaintiff had purchased the land from its true owners. The patta and adangal were transferred in the name of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff paid kist for the suit property thereby except the Plaintiff, no other person has any right over the suit property. After purchase of the said site, the Plaintiff had constructed a shed in the suit property and has been enjoying the same as cattle shed. The Eastern portion of the Survey No.80/3 belongs to the Defendants, and the further East portion belongs to one Kaliyaperumal. There are demarcation between the lands of the above parties. While so, the Defendant attempted to trespass into the suit property of the Plaintiff without any right. The Plaintiffs with much difficulty thwarted the same, however, the threat of dis-possession still continues. Therefore, the Plaintiff had instituted the suit seeking declaration of title of the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The written statement filed by the Defendants disputed the claim of the Plaintiff. As per the written statement filed by the Defendants, the said Swaminathan and Marimuthu were not brothers and they did not belong to the same family. The above Marimuthu did not at all have any right or interest over the suit properties, thereby, after his demise none of his legal heirs had any right or interest over the suit property as well. The entire suit property mentioned as 'A,B,C,D' in the plaint originally belongs to Arumugam and Kannusamy. Mahalingam is the son of Arumugam. He and another person executed an Exchange deed in 1951 and one portion was taken into possession by Mahalingam and another portion was taken into possession by Thangavelu. Kannusamy and Swaminathan executed an Exchange deed in 1951 and with Thangavelu. Marimuthu had no rights over the suit property at any point of time. The land purcha