BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.02.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA and M.P(MD) No.1 of 2007

1. Manikandan

2. Devakiammal (Died)

3. Palanichamy

4. Indirani

5. Santhakumari ... Appellants/Respondents/

Plaintiffs Vs.

Chandran ... Respondent/Appellant/

2nd defendant PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 11.09.2006 passed in A.S.30 of 2006 on the file of Sub Court, Palani, as reversing the Judgment and decree dated 10.2.2006 passed in O.S.250 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palani.

For Appellants : Mr.M.Saravanan For Respondent : Mr.M.P.Senthil

JUDGMENT

The second appeal is filed against the judgment and decree, dated

11.09.2006, passed in A.S.30 of 2006 on the file of Sub Court, Palani, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 10.2.2006 passed in O.S.250 of

2002 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Palani.

2. The plaintiffs 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.

4. Facts in brief:

The suit properties are comprised in Town Survey No.986 in Palani Town. The suit property comprises of two items. The first item of the suit property is in the possession and enjoyment of plaintiffs 1 and 2, and the second item of the suit property is in the possession and enjoyment of the third plaintiff.

5. According to the plaintiffs, the suit properties are their ancestral properties. The grandfather of the first plaintiff died about 40 years ago, leaving behind the father of the first plaintiff as his sole legal heir. The father of the first plaintiff thereafter enjoyed the property and died in the year 1988, leaving the first plaintiff (his son) and the second plaintiff (his wife) as his legal heirs to succeed to the first item of the suit property.

6. With regard to the second item of the suit property, it is stated that the same belonged to the paternal grandfather of the third plaintiff, one Karuppana Gounder, who constructed a house in the said property about 50 years back and was residing there. After his demise about 15 years ago, and pursuant to an oral partition effected in the family of the third plaintiff, the second item of the suit property was allotted to the third plaintiff. Since then, the third plaintiff has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

7. The plaintiffs state that they obtained electricity service connection for the suit properties, and that even though, the entire extent of T.S.No.986 stood in the name of Ambathurai Madam, in the Municipal records and that no subdivision was effected in favour of the plaintiffs, the said Ambathurai Madam did not object to the plaintiffs’ possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

8. While so, the first defendant, in collusion with the second defendant, interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. The defendants demanded the plaintiffs to sell the suit properties to them and upon refusal by them, the defendants attempted to encroach upon the vacant portion of the suit properties. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit seeking permanent injunction.

9. The defendants stated that the suit property originally belonged to Ambathurai Madam and thereafter, the said property was given by the Ammayanakkanur Jamin to Balaiya Swamigal Madam for conducting religious charity like thaneer panthal for the pilgrims, who visited during the festival season. For meeting the expenses of the charity, the properties in S.Nos.100, 102, 158 and 148 in Keelakottai Village, were given by Ammayanakkanur Jamin.

10. The defendants stated that their ancestors and after them, these defendants were doing charity in the form of Thaneer panthal and other charities during the festival season, utilising the income derived from the aforesaid properties. The defendants further stated hat the plaintiffs had no right over the suit properties and that they are unlawfully enjoying th