THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Order reserved on : 06.11.2025 Judgment pronounced on : 09.01.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI

A.S.No.580 of 2022

and CMP. No.22209 of 2022

G.Muruganandam

..Appellant

Vs.

T.A.Danasekaran

..Respondent

Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 and Order XLI, Rule 1 of CPC to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 05.04.2022 passed in O.S. No.71 of

2018 by the II Additional District Judge, Ranipet.

For Appellant : Mr.P.G.Thiyagu

For Respondent : Mr.B.Vijay for

Mr.G.Mohammed Aseef

JUDGMENT

The unsuccessful defendant in a suit for recovery of possession is the

appellant, in this first appeal.

2. PLEADINGS:

2.1.PLAINT IN BRIEF:

The plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. The defendant is an unauthorized tenant who had taken the property for occupation on a temporary basis. The defendant has entered into a sale agreement based on fabricated documents. The defendant filed a suit for specific performance in O.S. No.26 of 2009 before the District Court, Vellore. The said suit was transferred to the Second Additional District Court, Ranipet, Vellore and renumbered as O.S. No.1 of 2011 and the defendant did not come forward to contest the suit and the suit came to be dismissed on 17.09.2012. The defendant did not vacate despite the dismissal of the suit. The plaintiff was constrained to issue a lawyers’ notice on 31.03.2018, calling upon the defendant to vacate and also pay damages. As the defendant did not comply with the demands made in the lawyer’s notice, the suit has been filed.

2.2. WRITTEN STATEMENT IN BRIEF:

The defendant entered into a sale agreement with the plaintiff on

23.04.2008 for a total sale consideration of Rs.15 lakhs and on the date of agreement, an advance of Rs.51,000/- had been paid. Subsequently, the defendant advanced further monies and Rs.7,01,000/- in all, has been paid and pursuant to the agreement, possession was handed over by the plaintiff to the defendant. It is true that the suit filed by the defendant for specific performance was dismissed and the attempts to have the decree set aside were also unsuccessful. However, the defendant has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property for more than 12 years and has therefore, perfected his title by way of adverse possession and the defendant therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

2.3.ISSUES FRAMED BY THE TRIAL COURT:

1. Whether the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property?

2. Whether the defendant is in unlawful possession of the suit property?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and recovery of possession as prayed for? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs.2,88,000/- from the defendant as damages for use and occupation of the property from 15.07.2015 to 31.06.2018 with interest as prayed for?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.8,000/- per month from July 2018 till the date of delivery of possession with interest from the defendant as mesne profits?

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled get the relief of permanent injunction?

7. Whether the defendant has perfected his titled by way of adverse possession?

8. To what cost and other relief the plaintiff is entitled?

2.4. TRIAL:

At Trial, the plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to Ex.A9 and on the side of the defendants, the defendant himself examined as D.W.1 and one Jeyakumar as D.W2 and Ex.B1 to Ex.B10 were marked. Ex.A5 to Ex.A9 were marked through D.W1, in cross examination, 2.5. FINDINGS AND DECISION OF THE TRAIL COURT:

The Trial Court answered the issues in favour of the plaintiff and partly decreed the suit granting relief of possession, declaration and injunction while, declining the relief for damages.

3.I have heard Mr.P.G.Thiyagu, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.B.Vijay, learned counsel for Mr.G.Mohammed Aseef, learned counsel for the respondent.

4. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT:

4.1.Mr.P.G.Thiyagu, learned counsel for the