S.A.(MD).No.723 of 2020

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED:29.01.2021

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

S.A.(MD).No.723 of 2020 and

C.M.P(MD)No.80 of 2021

M.Sarala

:Appellant /Respondent/Defendant

Vs.

Seethaiyammal

Rep by her power agent

Kasiviswanathan

:Respondent/Appellant/Plaintiff

PRAYER:

Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure

Code, against judgment and decree dated 05.12.2019 made in A.S.No.65

of 2017, on the file of Subordinate Court, Paramakudi, reversing the

judgment and decree dated 29.07.2016 in O.S.No.19 of 2014, on the

file of the District Munsif Court, Paramakudi.

For Appellant

: Mr.H.Thayumanaswamy

J U D G M E N T

The defendant in O.S.No.19 of 2014, on the file of the

District Munsif Court, Paramakudi has come up with this Second

Appeal. Challenge is to the Judgment and Decree of the Appellate

Court made in A.S.No.65 of 2017, in and by which, the Appellate

Court reversed the Decree granted in O.S.No.19 of 2014.

2. The Suit in O.S.No.19 of 2014 was filed by the

plaintiff, claiming the relief of declaration of title and

injunction. According to the plaintiff, the suit property originally

belonged to one Janaki Ammal, who had purchased the same under Sale

Deed dated 05.09.1949 from one Nagaiah vagayara. After the death of

the said Janaki Ammal in the year 1955 (Wrongly mentioned as 1945 in

the plaint), the property devolved on her only son Muthiah Pillai.

The said Muthiah Pillai died 20 years prior to the suit, i.e around

1994, leaving behind the husband of the plaintiff, namely, Karuppiah

Pillai, who is his only son. Claiming that the sisters of Karuppiah

Pillai had accepted the title of Karuppiah Pillai, the plaintiff

would set up title in herself under the settlement deed, said to

have been executed by the said Karuppiah Pillai on 28.03.2003. It is

further case of the plaintiff that though the settlement deed dated

28.03.2003 described the property correctly, the survey number was

1/8

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.A.(MD).No.723 of 2020

given as 43/2 instead of 43/11. This necessitated the said Karuppiah

Pillai to execute another instrument of settlement dated 19.01.2007,

with correct survey number. Claiming that the defendant attempted to

interfere with her possession, setting up title in her favour, under

a Sale Deed dated 03.02.2006, said to have been executed by the

plaintiff's son Nithyanantham, the plaintiff sued for the above

reliefs.

3.The suit was resisted by the defendant contending that the

suit property is the ancestral property of Karuppiah Pillai and that

an oral partition between him and his son Nithyanantham, an extent

of 43 cents was allotted to Nithyanantham, which was sold by

Nithyanantham to the defendant under a Sale Deed dated 03.02.2006.

It is claimed that the Settlement Deeds dated 28.03.2003 and

19.01.2007 executed by Karuppiah Pillai were created by the

plaintiff to set up tittle in herself. It should be pointed out that

the execution of those documents by Karuppiah Pillai, was not

specifically denied in the written statement.

4.At trial, one Kasi Viswanathan was examined as PW 1 and

three other witnesses were examined as PWs 2 to 4. Exs.A1 to A13

were marked. The defendant was examined as DW 1 and Karuppusamy was

examined as DW 2. Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. Exs.C1 to C4 were also

marked through witnesses.

5.The trial Court, upon consideration of the evidence on

record, concluded that the plaintiff has not established her case.

The trial Court accepted the claim of the defendant that the

property being an ancestral property of Karuppiah Pillai, the

settlement deeds executed by him are not valid. On the above

conclusions, the learned trial Judge dismissed the suit.

6.Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.65

of 2017, before the Subordinate Court, Paramakudi. T