BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.01.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA S.A(MD)No.722 of 2009 & MP.(MD).No.1/2009

1.S.Muthukkaruppan

2.Rajeswari ... Appellants/Appellants/

Defendants 2 and 9 Vs.

1.C.Thangaraj (Died)

2.Valambal 3.Nagarajan 4.Angusamy

5.Pitchaiammal

6.Kunjammal

7.Panchavarnam

8.Dhanalakshmi ... Respondents 2 to 8/

Respondents 2 to 8/

Defendants 3-8 & 10 (R3 to R8 given up since they remained ex parte)

9.Sethu

10.Kamsala

11.Muthukamu

12.Kumar ... Respondents (R9 to R12 are brought on record as LRS of the deceased 1st respondent vide Court order dated 07.07.2023 in M.P(MD)Nos.1 to 3 of 2014 in SA(MD)No.722 of 2009)

PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree, dated 07.08.2008 passed in A.S.No.307 of 2005 on the file of I Additional Subordinate Judge, Thiruchirappalli, confirming the judgment and decree dated 08.07.2005 passed in O.S.No.9 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Lalkudi.

For Appellants : Mr.M.Saravanan For R2, 9 to R12 : M/s.J.Maria Roseline For R3 to R8 : Given Up

JUDGMENT

(1)The Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree, dated

07.08.2008, passed in A.S.No.307 of 2005, on the file of the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Thiruchirappalli, confirming the judgment and decree dated 08.07.2005 passed in O.S.No.9 of 1997 on the file of the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Lalkudi.

(2)The defendants in the suit are the appellants in the Second Appeal.

(3)The parties will be referred to as per their rank in the Trial Court.

Facts in brief:

(4)The case of the plaintiff is that he was originally a cultivating tenant of 3.65 acres of land belonging to one Kamatchi Ammal of Thinnanur Village, Thuraiyur Taluk. The plaintiff states that he surrendered possession of 1.50 acres of land to Kamatchi Ammal and continued as a cultivating tenant for the remaining extent of 2.15 acres. The plaintiff's further case is that he entered into an agreement with the purchaser of Kamatchi Ammal, namely, one Kumar by agreeing to surrender the land to an extent of 2.15 acres, except an extent of 28 cents, being the suit land. The plaintiff states that the said Kumar, under Exhibit A2, sold the suit land of 28 cents, comprised in S.No. 210/6, to the plaintiff. The plaintiff states that the second defendant in collusion with the first defendant, trespassed into the suit land and raised sugarcane crops. The plaintiff was therefore, constrained to file the suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession by removing the trespass committed by the defendants.

(5)The defendants in their written statement denied all the averments made in the plaint. The defendants stated that the plaintiff, as a cultivating tenant of Kamatchi Ammal, had transferred his leasehold right in respect of the suit property to the first defendant under a registered Lease Deed dated 17.07.1989 and had put the defendants in possession of the lands. The 1^st defendant was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and he in turn executed a Release Deed on 30.08.1991, transferring his leasehold rights in respect of the suit property, in favour of his mother, Rajeswari Ammal. The defendants stated that the said Rajeswari Ammal was a necessary party to the suit as she was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and that the failure to implead her in the suit was fatal to the plaintiff's case.

The defendants therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

(6)Before the Trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and marked two documents and the defendants examined one witness as DW1 and marked six documents.

(7)The Trial Court after framing necessary issues, decreed the suit declaring the plaintiff's title to the suit property and directing the defendants to vacate and hand over the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.

(8)Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the defendants pre