Advocates:
['M/S N MANOKARAN', '', 'V ANADHAMOORTHY', 'V MELBA', 'M/S V RAJESH', '', 'M/S S SRIDHARAN', 'S BALAN', 'FOR R AND R', 'M SWAMINATHAN', 'FOR R', 'GOVT PLEADER', 'FOR RR AND', 'MEMO NOT FILED']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 28.02.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA

S.A.No.1674 of 2008

and

M.P.No.1 of 2008

The Executive Officer,

Anthiyur Town Panchayat,

Anthiyur, Bhavani Taluk,

Erode District

...Appellant/3^rd Respondent/3^rd Respondent

Vs.

1. Indiramani

...1^st Respondent/Appellant/Plaintiff

2. The District Collector,

Erode District, Erode.

3. The Tahsildar, Bhavani Taluk,

Erode District.

4. T.K. Nanjappan

5. T.E. Perumal

...Respondents 2 to 5/ Respondents 1,2,4,5/

Respondents 1,2,4,5

Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908

against the decree and judgment dated 11.09.2008 passed in

A.S. No.5 of 2007, on the file of the Additional District

Court / Fast Track Court No.IV, Bhavani, Erode District,

reversing the decree and judgment dated 18.06.2004 passed in

O.S. No.283 of 2004, on the file of the First Additional

District Munsif Court, Bhavani, Erode District.

For Appellant

: Mr.R. Darshan

for Mr.N.Manokaran

For R1

: Mr.S. Sridharan

For R2 & R3

: Ms.S.V.Supraja

Government Advocate

For R4 and R5

: Ms. K. Ponmani

for Mr.V.Rajesh

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

JUDGMENT

The appellant is the third defendant in O.S.No.283 of

2004 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif

Court, Bhavani, Erode District. The first respondent,

Indirani, filed the said suit for a declaration of her title

to the suit property and also for a permanent injunction

restraining the present respondents and the appellant from

interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

suit property.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are

referred to as per their ranking in the trial court and in

appropriate places, their rank in the present appeal would

also be indicated.

3. The minimum facts that are required for the

disposal of this second appeal are as follows:

3.1. The suit property is described in two parts in

the plaint schedule and the entire suit property is a vacant

site in new survey Nos.1964/7 and 1964/8 (old survey

No.1506/4) of Thavuttupalayam, Anthiyur Village measuring 1600

sq.ft). The plaintiff Indirani (P.W.1) claims title and

possession over the suit property by means of a sale deed

dated 20.11.1998 (Photostat copy of which is marked as Ex.A2)

executed by one Valliammal and Kuppusamy Gounder.

3.2 The case of the plaintiff is that the suit

property was originally owned by one Kaliyammal, who executed

a settlement deed dated 15.09.1956 (Ex.A1) in favour of her

two daughters Valliammal (one of the vendors of the plaintiff)

and Kaliyammal and that since Kaliyammal (sister of

Valliammal) died, Valliammal became the absolute owner of the

suit property. According to the plaintiff, she is in

possession and enjoyment of the suit property ever since the

date of purchase and that the Executive Officer, Anthiyur Town

Panchayat (present appellant), is frequently disturbing her

peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property.

According to her, she has perfected her title by adverse

possession and prescription.

4. The defendants 1 to 3 in their written statements

have denied the title of the plaintiff to the suit property.

According to them, the suit property is a Government land and

that the plaintiff alone attempted to encroach the suit

property and also tried to close the well meant for public

usage. The defendants 4 and 5 in their written statement had

contended that the plaintiff had already filed a suit in O.S.

No.75/2001 in respect of the same suit property before the Sub

Court, Bhavani, against them and others in order to legalise

her claim as the suit property is a Government land.

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

5. The trial court after framing necessary