IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 17.10.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI

and C.M.P.No.10947 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.15068 of 2025

Vaithilingam ...Appellant/Plaintiff

Vs.

1. State of Tamil Nadu

represented by the District Collector,

Office of the District Collector,

Ariyalur District. 2. The Tahsildar,

Jayankondam,

Udayarpalayam Taluk,

Ariyalur District.

3. The Commissioner,

Andimadam Union,

Udayarpalayam Taluk,

Ariyalur District.

4. The President,

Devanur Panchayat,

Devanur Village,

Udayarpalayam Taluk

Ariyalur District.

...Respondents/Defendants

PRAYER:- This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2023 passed in A.S.No.56 of 2017 on the file of the Sub-Court, Jayandondam reversing the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2013 passed in O.S.No.259 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Jayankondam and allow this Appeal.

For Appellant : Mr.S.Nagarajan For Respondents : Mr.P.Gurunathan Additional Government Pleader

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2023 made in A.S.No.56 of 2017 by the Subordinate Court, Jayankondan, Ariyalur District.

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

3. According to the plaintiff, suit properties are two items of dry land, situate in one block, in Survey No.230/3A 0.09.0 ares and in Survey No.230/3B Hectare 1.22.5 ares, north-south 3 metre x east-west 124 metre. The plaintiff purchased the suit properties on 07.06.1990 and patta has been granted in his name. There is a live fence with trees, on the north of the suit property. On 24.07.2007, the 4^th defendant encroached into the first and second item of the suit property with JCB and destroyed the live fence and the trees such as neem tree, portia tree and Acacia tree and laid the road. For laying of road, the defendants no.1 to 3 have allocated funds. The plaintiff has sustained loss to the tune of Rs.1,00,000/-. The FMB in respect of the suit property indicates that there is a cart track to the north of the suit property. Plaintiff was not given any notice before laying of the road, hence the suit.

4. Per contra, on behalf of the defendants no.3 and 4, it is contended that it is incorrect to state that the suit properties item no.1 and 2 are in one block. The first item of the property was a cart track and the public have been using the said property as cart track. Even in the sale deed of the plaintiff, in the boundary details, it has been mentioned as to the south and west of cart track on the east of the plaintiff's property road runs in north to south and on the north, cart track is situated in east–west. First item of the suit property does not belong to the plaintiff. From the inception, public have been using the cart track situated in S.No.230/3A for the past 100 years. It was sub-divided as cart track. Thereafter plaintiff obtained patta in his name is not legal. When the road lying work was going on, the plaintiff did not raise any objection and without any basis, with false details, he has filed the suit.

5. The trial Court framed relevant issues. To prove the plaint details, the plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.1 and four documents have been marked. Ex.A1 dated 07.06.1990 is the sale deed executed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit properties. On the defendants side, one witness has been examined. Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the trial Court and he has filed his report and rough sketch (Ex.C1 and Ex.C2). The trial Court upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, except the relief of future mesne profits, suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. 6. Aggrieved, the defendant preferred appeal in A.S.No.56 of 2017 before the Subordinate Court, Jayamkondan. Before the First Appellate Court, on behalf of the defendants, one Narayanan has been examined as R.W.2 and seven documents ha