IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24.10.2025

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI

S.Ramesh ... Appellant / Plaintiff

-vs-

Velu ... Respondent / Defendant

PRAYER: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 02.12.2022 of the IV Additional City Civil Judge at Chennai made in A.S.No.23 of 2022 reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 07.03.2022 of the learned XVI Assistant Judge of the City

Civil Court, Chennai.

For Appellant : Mr.R.Chandrasudan

For Respondent : Mr.K.S.V.Prasad

JUDGMENT

The plaintiff herein has preferred this Second Appeal against the

judgment and decree dated 02.12.2022 passed in A.S.No.23 of 2022 by

the IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. Parties are indicated herein as per their litigative status and

ranking before the trial Court.

3. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff who is a Building Promoter purchased the suit property from R.Devika on 10.09.2011 through a registered sale deed. Since then, plaintiff has been in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit property and pays the relevant tax to the statutory authorities. The suit property is one among the houses in a row of houses. Originally, Gangadhara Mudaliar purchased the larger extent of suit property on 14.10.1948 and he constructed row houses bearing Old Door Nos.75/7, 75/8, 75/9, 75/10, 75/11 and 75/12.

3.1. Plaintiff seeks injunction against defendant's interference with construction of the property following a dispute over adjacent land and prior complaints.

3.2. The plaintiff is the purchaser of row house bearing Old Door No.75/10. The said Gangadhara Mudaliar executed a settlement deed dated 12.06.1955 in favor of his son, Vedachala Mudaliar. The said Vedachala Mudaliar settled the properties in favour of his daughter R.Devika under a Settlement Deed dated 18.06.2006. After purchase of the suit property in the year 2011, plaintiff demolished the superstructure in the year 2012. The defendant wanted to purchase his property and as the plaintiff refused to sell the property, defendant is enemical to him. 3.3. The plaintiff started construction in the suit property on

02.03.2017 by laying foundation column after completion of earthwork. The defendant gave a complaint with the Authority to the effect that plaintiff is attempting to trespass into the northern portion of the property. The defendant never raised any question whatsoever to the plaintiff between 2012 to 2017, when the property was lying vacant. The plaintiff is putting up construction within his property. The police complaint was closed as the dispute is of civil nature. Hence, the suit for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and his men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property in any way including doing the construction activities.

4. Per contra, the defendant counteracted the plaint details by filing written statement which is given in a nutshell. The title of the predecessor in title of the plaintiff is not disputed. The defendant never asked the plaintiff to sell the suit property. As alleged by the plaintiff, he has no animosity on the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not purchase the property to an extent of 660 sq.ft. The plaintiff started digging under the southern wall of the defendant's house and started to remove bricks from the southern wall. When the plaintiff was questioned about the unlawful activities, the suit was laid by him with false allegations.

4.1. The defendant purchased his property measuring 635 sq.ft., on

09.09.1999 and the extent is 31 sq.ft., (East-West) X 20.5 sq.ft., (North- South) when riding over all the walls excluding northern wall. Plaintiff's suit property is situate on the southern side of the defendant's property. The purchaser of the larger extent of land, Gangadhara Mudaliar constructed two rows of houses leaving Gangadharan Nilayam Road in the middle. The row houses are situated in between St.Marry'