Ownership claims require proof of exclusive rights; mere designation in records does not suffice.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 04.03.2026 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR Manickam ... Appellant vs.

1.Srinivasan 2.Babiammal

3.Ramamoorthy Senthil (dead) 4.Dhandapani Murugavel (dead)

5.Elavarasi

6.Sambath Kumar ... Respondents PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to allow the Second Appeal by setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 09.10.2025 passed in A.S.No.34 of 2019 on the file of the Sub-Court, Madurantagam confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 19.02.2018 passed in O.S.No.67 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurantagam.

For Appellant : Mr.K.Govi Ganesan For R3 : Ms.T.N.Sona for M/s.V.Srimathi J U D G M E N T The unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession is the appellant.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and he also sought for a declaration that the Sale Deed executed by the 1^st defendant in favour of 8^th defendant dated 20.05.2009 was null and void. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. The first appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court by confirming the findings of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the appellant/plaintiff has come before this Court.

3. According to the appellant/plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to three persons namely Samarapuri Mudaliar, Dharmalinga Mudaliar and Viswanatha Mudaliar. The appellant is the son of Dharmalinga Mudaliar. The above said Samarapuri Mudaliar was succeeded by his two sons namely Ramasamy and Narayanasamy. The 1^st defendant in the suit is the only son of Narayanasamy. The other son of Samarapuri Mudaliar namely Ramasamy died leaving behind the 2^nd defendant, his daughter in law and defendants 3 and 4, sons of his only son Govindasamy, as his legal representatives. Therefore, the defendants 1 to 4 are descendants of Samarapuri Mudaliar. The above said Viswanatha Mudaliar had only one son namely Thangaraj and after the death of said Thangaraj, his sons are arrayed as defendants 5 and 6. It is also admitted by the plaintiff that the patta for the suit property stands in the joint names of original three owners. It is the claim of the plaintiff that in SLR Extract, 66 cents of land in the suit survey number has been mentioned in the name of appellant's father Dharmalinga Mudaliar. It is also claimed that the appellant has been enjoying 66 cents of land left by his father in the suit property, which is on the Western Side.

4. It is the further case of the appellant that the respondents 1 to

4/defendants maneuvered to secure patta in their names without the knowledge of the appellant/plaintiff. During November-2006, the defendants 1 to 4 trespassed into the suit property and put up a fence. Therefore, the appellant was constrained to file a suit for above said reliefs.

In nutshell, the sum and substance of the case of the appellant is that he is entitled to 66 cents of land on the Western Side of the suit survey number and another 66 cents shall go to Thangaraj Mudaliar S/o.Viswanatha Mudaliar. The remaining 3.12 acres should go to the heirs of Samarapuri Mudaliar.

5. The defendants 2 and 3 field written statement denying the title of the plaintiff over the suit property. According to the defendants 2 and 3, the great-grandfather-Samarapuri, grandfather-Ramasamy and his brother Narayanasamy and later their father Govindasamy alone individually enjoyed the S.No.48/3 and the defendants family alone have been enjoying the entire extent in S.No.48/3C along with S.No.48/3E, which is situated on immediate Eastern Side of S.No.48/3C, after due sub-division. It is the specific case of the defendants 2 and 3 that