BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated 13.03.2026 CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH SA. (MD)No.281 of 2007 PL.Ragunathan .. Appellant/Plaintiff Vs.

1.SP.Periakaruppan ambalam

2.MR.Subbaiah

3.M.Pandivel

4.S.Perianayagi

5.S.Kunjaram W/o.Shanmugam

6.S.Pandimeena

7.Athiyappan

8.Muthu

9.Saravanan

10.Chithra 11.Meenal

12.Sornavalli 13.Kunjaram W/o.Sivaraman ... respondents/defendants Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2006 in in AS No.37/2005 on the file of the Sub Court, Devakottai, confirming the judgment and decree passed in OS No.55/2000 dated 11.02.2005 on the file of the District Munsif, Devakottai.

For Appellant : Mr.R.Sundar Srinivasan For Respondent : Mr.AL.Vijaydevaraj for R2

JUDGMENT

The second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Devakottai dated 19.07.2006 in AS No.37/2005 confirming the judgment and decree of the District Munsif, Devakottai, in OS NO.55/2000 dated 11.02.2005.

2.The plaintiff is the appellant in this case.

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit A schedule property is the western side property of the entire schedule property comprised in TS No. 26, which belonged to Raghunathan Ambalam. He had three sons, namely, the father of the 2^nd defendant, the first defendant and the father of the plaintiff. The further case of the plaintiff is that there was partition between the defendants 1 and 2 and a memorandum dated 01.03.1965 was entered into and in that memorandum, B Schedule was allotted to the father of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, it was 1/3^rd share in the property, which is in the western portion of TS No.26.

4. The further case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit 'A' schedule property. It is under these circumstances, the suit came to be filed for the relief of bare injunction or in the alternative for the relief of partition and for allotment of 1/3^rd share in the 'B' schedule property.

5. The first defendant denied the very execution of the memorandum dated 01.03.1965 and also claimed adverse possession. Insofar as the second defendant is concerned, he also disputed the partition evidenced by memorandum dated 01.03.1965 and also claimed to be in possession of the 'A' schedule property.

6. The third defendant was impleaded as the legal heir of the first defendant and he took a stand that the settlement was executed by the 2^nd defendant in favour of the 1^st defendant by document dated 15.12.1973 and he also disputed the memorandum dated 01.03.1965.

7. The plaintiff before the trial Court examined himself as PW1 and marked Exs.A1 to A3. The third defendant examined himself as DW1 and marked Ex.B1 to B16.

8. The trial Court, on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of evidence, came to a conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief sought for and accordingly dismissed the suit by judgment and decree dated 11.02.2005.

9. Aggrieved by the above judgment passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff filed an appeal before the Sub Court, Devakottai in AS No.37 of 2005. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal by judgment and decree dated 19.07.2006 and thereby confirming the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the present second appeal has been filed before this Court.

10. It is seen from the records that this Court had only issued notice in the second appeal and no substantial questions of law were framed.

11. In view of the above, this Court heard the learned counsel for the appellant in order to see if any substantial questions of law are involved in the second appeal.

12. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the factum of partition has been admitted by the defendant and hence, even assuming that Ex.A1 cannot be admitted, since it is not registered, the very admission on t