IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS RESERVED ON : 29.10.2025 PRONOUNCED ON : 12.01.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE S.A.Nos.235 & 236 of 2014 S.A.No.235 of 2014

1. N. Perumal

2. Chinnasamy ...Appellants Versus

1. Murugammal

2. Chinnasamy

3. Mariappan

4. Perumal

5. Selvi

6.Eswari

7. Madammal ... Respondents PRAYER in S.A.:

Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2012 made in A.S.No.56 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri and confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.47 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif, Palacode dated 20.08.2011 and allow this Second Appeal.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:

For Appellant : Mr.C.Umasankar for M/s.M.Selvam For Respondents : Mr.V.R.Annagandhi for R1 to R6 R7 – Served no appearance S.A.No.236 of 2014 N. Perumal ...Appellant Versus

1. Murugammal

2. Chinnasamy

3. Mariappan

4. Perumal

5. Selvi

6.Eswari

7. Madammal ... Respondents PRAYER in S.A.:

Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code to set aside the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2012 made in A.S.No.8 of 2012 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri and confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.95 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif, Palacode dated 20.08.2011 and allow this Second Appeal.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:

For Appellant : Mr.C.Umasankar for M/s.M.Selvam For Respondents : Mr.V.R.Annagandhi for R1 to R6 R7 – Served no appearance

C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

The present Second Appeals arise out of a common judgment and decree dated 30.11.2012 in A.S.No.8 of 2012 and A.S.No 56 of 2011 on the file of Sub court , Dharmapuri confirming the common judgment and decree dated 20.08.2011 in O.S. No. 47 of 2008 and O.S. No. 95 of 2009 on the file of District Munsif, Palacode.

2. The parties in both suits are identical, each being arrayed as plaintiffs in one suit and as defendants in the other.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to according to their rank and description in O.S. No. 47 of 2008.

4. In O.S. No. 47 of 2008, the plaintiffs are the legal heirs of Shanmugam. The said Shanmugam inherited the suit properties from his father, Sennappan, who had purchased the suit properties comprised in Survey Nos. 269 and 270 under Ex.A1, sale deed dated 21.06.1954. According to the plaintiffs, the 1st defendant took the property on lease, agreeing to pay one-third of the yield, and was enjoying the same along with the 2nd defendant. When the 1st defendant committed default in payment of the yield in the year 2007, and when the 1st and 2nd defendants attempted to alienate the property in favour of the 3rd defendant, the suit for declaration and recovery of possession was filed. The 1st and 2nd defendants in this suit are the plaintiffs in O.S. No. 95 of 2009 seeking declaration to declare the 1^st defendant title in the ‘A’ Schedule property and 2^nd defendant title in the ‘B’ Schedule Property and to declare O.S.47 of 2008 Judgment and decree as null and void and permanent injunction.

5. The contention of the defendants is that the 1st defendant purchased the suit properties from Sennappan by an oral sale dated 20.01.1975 for a sale consideration of Rs.7,000/- and that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, with patta standing in his name. It is further contended that the 1st defendant sold a portion of the property to the 3rd defendant. The defendants denied the lease pleaded by the plaintiffs. It is also contended that Shanmugam, the husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of the other plaintiffs, was not the sole legal heir of late Sennappan, and that the children born through the second wife of Sennappan were not arrayed as parties to the suit. Hence, according to the defendants, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and is liable to be dismissed.

6. The trial court decreed O.S. No. 47 of 2008 and dismissed O.S.

No. 95 of 2009. The first ap