IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 25-11-2025

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL

1. K. Balu

S/o Kaathamuthu

Sellappampatti Village Namakkal Tk

Kathamuthu (died)

2. JOTHI

W/o P. Subramani

Vettukadu Namakkal Tk

3. K. Viruthambal

W/o Kaathamuthu Sellappampatti Village

Namakkal Tk.

..Plaintiff/respondents/

Appellant(s)

Vs

Southern Region Bulk Lpg Trans

Port Owners Assoication Rep By Its President Hav

Off D.No.87 Salem Rd Namakkal Town,Tk&dt.

..defendant/appellant/

Respondent(s)

Prayer: Second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking a direction to set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.08.2014 in A.S.No.32 of 2013 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Namakkal reversing the judgment and decree dated 12.07.2012 in O.S.No.352 of 2006 on the file of

Additional District Munsif, Namakkal.

For Appellant(s): Mr.S.Kalyanaraman For Respondent(s): Mr.V.Perumal for Mr.T.Dhanya Kumar

JUDGMENT

This second appeal is preferred as against the decree and judgment passed by the first appellate Court in A.S.No.32 of 2013 dated 27.08.2014 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal.

2. Before the trial Court, the appellants/respondents/plaintiffs have filed a suit in O.S.No.352 of 2006 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Namakkal for the relief of recovery of possession and mandatory injunction. The said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment passed by the trial Court, the defendant / appellant / respondent have preferred an appeal before the first appellate Court and the said appeal was allowed. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgement, the present second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs. 3. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:

(i) The suit property is situated in Sellamppampatti Village in S.No.57/2 to an extent of 0.81.0 hectares that is 2.00 acres. The said property originally belonged to one Ramasamy Udaiyar and thereafter, the plaintiffs purchased the said property from the said Ramasamy Udaiyar through sale deed dated

21.09.1981 for Rs.12,000/- and thereafter, patta was also granted in favour of the plaintiffs and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property.

(ii) In the rough sketch filed along with the plaint, land belonging to the plaintiffs is mentioned as ‘P’ and the land purchased by the plaintiffs is mentioned as ‘T’ and the property belonging to the defendant is marked as ‘D’. The suit property has been mentioned as ‘P’ and ‘T’. The said ‘P’ and ‘T’ portion of the properties were sold by the plaintiffs to one Gunasekaran through sale deed dated 01.03.2006 to an extent of 1.90 ½ acres.

(iii) The defendant purchased the property from one Marudhayee Ammal through sale deed dated 09.02.2004, which is adjacent to the southern side of the suit property. The defendant also constructed a petrol bunk. While constructing the building, the defendant encroached the ‘P’ portion along with ‘D’ portion and constructed a compound wall. In November 2005, the plaintiffs were not residing in the locality and taking advantage of the same, defendant constructed the property by encroaching the plaintiffs’ property. The defendant has no right to encroach the said property and in spite of repeated requests and demands made by the plaintiffs, the defendant has failed to return the said property.

(iv) The plaintiffs sent a legal notice dated 23.03.2006 and the same was received by the defendant but failed to give a reply or handed over vacant portion of the property. Therefore, the plaintiffs have filed the suit.

4. The brief averments of the written statement of the defendant are as follows:

(i) The suit is false, frivolous and not maintainable in law. The plaintiffs have to prove the averments in the plaint except those that are admitted by the defendant. It is true that the plaintiffs purchased the property from one Ramasamy Udaiyar in S.No.57/2 but not to an extent of two acres. The extent mentioned in the patta and the propert