Madras High Court
Unknown vs Ramamurthy (Died) on 12 November, 2025
SA No. 161 of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 12-11-2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
SA No. 161 of 2010 and
CMP.No.17867 of 2021 and
CMP.No.28187 of 2025 and
M.P.No.1 of 2010
1. Sheik Hussain Sayab
S/o Basha Sayab At Valathy Village Gingeetk
Villupuram Dist
2. KARIAN
S/o Vellaya Naicker At Valathy Village Gingeetk
Villupuram Dist
3. SELVAM
S/o Kathavarayan At Valathy Village Gingeetk
Villupuram Dist
4. PATTUAMMAL
D/o Murthy Naicker At Valathy Village Gingeetk
Villupuram Dist
5. KANNAMMAL
W/o Kanesa Naicker At Valathy Village
Gingeetk Villupuram Dist
6. ELUMALAI
S/o Pachiappa Naicker At Valathy Village
Gingeetk Villupuram Dist
7. RAMADOSS
S/o Pachiappa Naicker At Valathy Village,
Gingee tk Villupuram Dist
8. RANGANAYAKI
W/o Annamalai Kiramani At Valathy Village
Gingeetk Villupuram Dist
9. MANICKAM
S/o Palani Korapattan At Valathy Village Gingee
tk Villupuram Dist
__________
Page 1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/12/2025 03:54:11 pm )
SA No. 161 of 2010
10.ANANDAN
S/o Korapattan At Valathy Village Gingee tk
Villupuram Dist
11.ARUMUGHAAM
S/o Dhanabal Naicker At Valathy Village Gingee
tk Villupuram Dist
12.PERUMAL
S/o Guirusamy Maistri At Valathy Village
Gingee tk Villupuram Dist
13.ETTIAMMAL
W/o Chinnathambi Naicker At Valathy Village
Gingee tk Villupuram Dist
..Appellant(s) /
Defendants 1 to 10,
12,14,16
Vs
1. Ramamurthy (died)
S/o Chinnambi Gounder At Valathy Village
Gingeetk Villupuram Dist
2. Natarasan (died)
S/o Chinnambi Gounder At Valathy Village
Gingeetk Villupuram Dist
3. VEERARAGHAVAN
S/o Kanna Gounder At Valathy Village Gingeetk
Villupuram Dist
4. BABU
S/o Kanna Gounder At Valathy Village Gingeetk
Villupuram Dist
5. PANCHAMMURTHY
S/o Narayanan At Valathy Village Gingeetk
Villupuram Dist
6. PATTAMMAL
W/o Gurusamy Maistri At Valathy Village
Gingeetk Villupuram Dist
__________
Page 2 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/12/2025 03:54:11 pm )
SA No. 161 of 2010
7. PAVUNAMMAL
D/o Gurusamy Maistri At Valathy Village
Gingeetk Villupuram Dist
8. MURTHY
S/o Chinnathambi Naicker At Valathy Village
Gingeetk Villupuram Dist
9. LAKSHMI W/o.Ramamoorthy,
No.64, mariamman Koil Street, Maanur Village,
Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District
10.PARTHASARATHY S/o.Ramamoorthy,
No.3/55, Mariamman Kovil Street, Salavathi Mel
Pettai Post, Tindivanam 604307
11.PARAMASIVAM S/o.Ramamoorthy,
No.2/2, Veppan Salai Street, Tindivanam 604301
12.PRAKASH s/o Ramamoorthy,
No.83, Lakshmi Nagar, Aarampakkam village,
Padappai village and post -601 301, Kundrathur
taluk, Kanhipuram district
(R1 DIED, RR9 TO 12 ARE BROUGHT ON
RECORD AS LRS OF DECEASED R1, VIDE
ORDER OF COURT DATED 12/03/2024
MADE IN
CMP.NOS.5409,5411,5415,5418,5419 AND
5422/2023 IN SA.NO.161/2010)
13.KANAGA w/o Natarajan,
No.27, Tharathamman Kovil street, Valathi post-
604208, Melaiyunur Taluk, Villupuram District
14.KOMATHI w/o Natarajan,
No.27, Tharathamman Kovil street, Valathi post-
604208, Melaiyunur Taluk, Villupuram District
15.SARAVANA BABU w/o Natarajan,
No.27, Tharathamman Kovil street, Valathi post-
604208, Melaiyunur Taluk, Villupuram District
16.PADMANABHAN w/o Natarajan
, No.27, Tharathamman Kovil street, Valathi
post- 604208, Melaiyunur Taluk, Villupuram
__________
Page 3 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/12/2025 03:54:11 pm )
SA No. 161 of 2010
District
( R2 DIED, RR13 TO 16 ARE BROUGHT ON
RECORD AS LRS OF DECEASED R2, VIDE
ORDER OF COURT DATED 12/03/2024
MADE IN
CMP.NOS.5409,5411,5415,5418,5419 AND
5422/2023 IN SA.NO.161/2010)
17.The District Collector Of Villupuram,
Villupuram.
18.The Revenue Tahsildar,
Melmalayanur Taluk, Melmalayanur Taluk,
Villupuram District.
(RR17 and 18 are impleaded as party respondents
vide court order dated 31/07/2025 made in
cmp.no.9069 of 2024 in S.A.No.161 of 2010)
..Respondent(s)
PRAYER : Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and
decree dated 11.08.2009 made in A.S.No.4 of 2008 on the file of the Court of
the Subordinate Judge, Gingee, confirming the judgment and decree dated
30.08.2007 made in O.S.No.415 of 1998 on the file of the Court of Principal
District Munsif, Gingee.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Agilesh
For Respondent(s): MR K. MOHAMMED HYDHER ALI
FOR MR P. DINESH KUMAR
FOR R9 TO R16
Mr.A.Anandan, GA for R17 & R18
JUDGMENT
__________ Page 4 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/12/2025 03:54:11 pm ) SA No. 161 of 2010 This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2009 made in A.S.No.4 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Gingee, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2007 made in O.S.No.415 of 1998 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Gingee.
2. The suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for mandatory injunction and recovery of possession. The Trial Court has decreed the suit as prayed. In the First Appeal preferred by the defendants, the First Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court by dismissing the First Appeal. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants 1 to 10, 12,14 and 16 have preferred this Second Appeal. As the property is said to be belonging to the Government, the Government respondents have also been impleaded as respondents 17 and 18 subsequently.
3. The short facts pleaded in the plaint are as follows:
The suit item No.1 in S.No.151/2 measuring 27 cents and the suit item No.2 in S.No.149/1 measuring 1 acre had been in enjoyment of the plaintiffs and their predecessors. In fact, the plaintiffs have already filed a suit in O.S.No.1918 of 1973 for permanent injunction to protect their possession and the same has been decreed in favour of the plaintiffs on 18.08.1976. The Appeal __________ Page 5 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/12/2025 03:54:11 pm ) SA No. 161 of 2010 filed challenging the above decree of the Trial Court has also been dismissed. As the defendants did not respect the decree granted in favour of the plaintiffs, an Execution Petition has been filed for contempt, but the said Petition was dismissed. The said order was challenged by way of filing CRP.No.2194 of 1987 and that was disposed by stating that the above Petition can be dealt by the Executing Court itself. As the defendants did not give any trouble thereafter, no further action has been taken by the plaintiffs. Once again, the defendants had started to create disturbance to the plaintiffs' possession over the suit property by putting thatched shed, the plaintiffs have filed a suit for recovery of possession and mandatory injunction.
4. The averments made in the written statement of the defendants are as follows:
All the defendants are not parties to the earlier suit in O.S.No.1918 of 1973. The above suit has been filed by the plaintiffs' predecessor only against some of the defendants. The suit property is a poramboke property and in the earlier suit, the plaintiffs did not implead the Government as a party to the proceedings. The defendants were in enjoyment of the suit property from the year 1972 by constructing a thatched shed over the same. The Trial Court had decreed the suit by getting convinced with the plaintiffs' possession over the suit property and that the defendants had caused disturbance to their peaceful possession. Even the Appellate Court had also confirmed the same. Now, the __________ Page 6 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/12/2025 03:54:11 pm ) SA No. 161 of 2010 appellants who are the defendants 1 to 10, 12,14,16 have submitted that the plaintiffs have not impleaded the necessary party viz., the Government and the earlier decree obtained by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1918 of 1973 has been passed in respect of Poramboke properties. As all the defendants are not parties to the earlier proceedings, the judgment of the earlier suit in O.S.No.1918 of 1973 cannot be considered as barred by the principles of res judicata. Even the plaintiffs did not deny the fact that the suit property belonged to the Government and it is a poramboke property.
5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues:
“1/ tHf;F brhj;Jf;fs; thjpfSf;F ghj;jpakhdjh> 2/ tHf;F tpsk;g[if ghpfhuk; nfhuhj njhc&j;jhy;
ghjpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjh>
3/ tHf;F c/tp/K/rl;lk; gphp[t[ 11 d;go
ghjpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjh>
4/ tHf;F brhj;J tpguk; rhpjhdh>
5/ thjp jhth brhj;Jf;Fhpath;fisa[k; kw;w chpa
jug;gpdh;fshf nrh;f;fhj njhc&j;jhy; ghjpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjh> 6/ K/t/vz;/1918-1973 Twg;gl;l jPh;g;g[ gpujpthjpfis fl;Lg;gLj;jhjh> __________ Page 7 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/12/2025 03:54:11 pm ) SA No. 161 of 2010 7/ thjpfSf;F tHf;fpy; nfhhpathW bray; cWj;Jf;fl;lisa[k;. xg;g[jy; bgwt[k; mUfija[ilatuh> 8/ thjpfSf;F ntW vd;d ghpfhuk; fpilf;Fk;>”
6. At the conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court has decreed the suit as prayed. In the First Appeal preferred by the defendants, the First Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court by dismissing the First Appeal. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants 1 to 10, 12,14,16 have preferred this Second Appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law:
“(a) Whether the Lower Courts correct and justified in decreeing the suit, such cases are squarely applied to this case (Section 11 Explanation VI of C.P.C.)?
(b) Whether the Lower Courts below correct and justified in decreeing the suit when the property belongs to Government Poramboke?
(c ) Whether the Lower Courts correct in decreeing the suit?
(d) Are the Courts below correct in decreeing the suit when the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties viz., Government and Village Panchayath?”
7. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 17 & 18 has submitted that the suit property belongs to the Government. But there is no specific denial to the fact that the suit property is in the enjoyment of the __________ Page 8 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/12/2025 03:54:11 pm ) SA No. 161 of 2010 plaintiffs. Neither the Government nor any private parties has filed any suit subsequently to declare that the decree rendered in O.S.No.1918 of 1973 as null and void. Since the original owner / Government is not a party to O.S.No.1918 of 1973, the decree passed in the same will not bind the Government. However, the decree passed in the earlier suit could decide who can have a better possession. Admittedly, the only grievance of the appellants is that the plaintiffs cannot have a right of title or enjoyment in the property belonging to the Government.
8. As stated already, the relief of injunction or declaration obtained by the plaintiffs in the earlier suit will bind every other person except the true owner, the Government. If any new person comes each time and disturbs the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property basing upon the said cause of action, the plaintiffs might need to file another suit for seeking the relief of permanent injunction.
9. In the instant case, the cause of action that has been pleaded by the plaintiffs is that the appellants without having any manner of right, started to disturb their possession over the suit property by putting up some construction. Some of the defendants in the suit were parties to the earlier suit filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1918 of 1973 also. As the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property is settled and evidenced through the judgment and decree of the Court, if any one claims to have a better possession than the plaintiffs, ought __________ Page 9 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/12/2025 03:54:11 pm ) SA No. 161 of 2010 to have proved that at any point of time subsequent to the earlier decree obtained in O.S.No.1918 of 1973, the plaintiffs have been dispossessed and thereafter, any of the defendants had taken possession. Admittedly, that was not the stand of the any of the defendants and their only contention is that they have been in occupation of the suit property from the year 1972.
10. The suit has been filed in the year 1973 and the possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property has been accepted and on that basis, a decree has been obtained. In such circumstances, the appellants' contention they had been in possession of the suit property from the year 1972 cannot be accepted. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have already dealt the matter and granted the decree in favour of the plaintiffs to protect their interest over the suit property as against the defendants.
11. It is stated that the decree so obtained by the plaintiffs can be enforceable only against the private defendants and not the Government respondents who have been impleaded now. As the Government is the original owner of the suit property, it is at the discretion of the Government to initiate any action either to approve the possession of the respective parties over the poramboke land by granting patta or to initiate any other proceedings. As the appellants / defendants have not proved to be the persons having better interest of possession over the suit property, but they have caused disturbance to the settled possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property, both the Courts below __________ Page 10 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/12/2025 03:54:11 pm ) SA No. 161 of 2010 have rightly granted and confirmed the relief as prayed by the plaintiffs. In the above circumstances, I do not find that the appellants have made any ground in order to grant any relief as prayed by them.
12. In the result, this Second Appeal is rejected. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
12-11-2025 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No GSK To
1. Ramamurthy (died) S/o Chinnambi Gounder At Valathy Village Gingeetk Villupuram Dist
2. Natarasan (died) S/o Chinnambi Gounder At Valathy Village Gingeetk Villupuram Dist
3. VEERARAGHAVAN S/o Kanna Gounder At Valathy Village Gingeetk Villupuram Dist
4. BABU S/o Kanna Gounder At Valathy Village Gingeetk Villupuram Dist
5. PANCHAMMURTHY S/o Narayanan At Valathy Village Gingeetk Villupuram Dist
6. PATTAMMAL W/o Gurusamy Maistri At Valathy Village Gingeetk Villupuram Dist
7. PAVUNAMMAL D/o Gurusamy Maistri At Valathy Village Gingeetk Villupuram Dist
8. MURTHY __________ Page 11 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/12/2025 03:54:11 pm ) SA No. 161 of 2010 S/o Chinnathambi Naicker At Valathy Village Gingeetk Villupuram Dist
9. LAKSHMI W/o.Ramamoorthy, No.64, mariamman Koil Street, Maanur Village, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District
10.PARTHASARATHY S/o.Ramamoorthy, No.3/55, Mariamman Kovil Street, Salavathi Mel Pettai Post, Tindivanam 604307
11.PARAMASIVAM S/o.Ramamoorthy, No.2/2, Veppan Salai Street, Tindivanam 604301
12.PRAKASH s/o Ramamoorthy, No.83, Lakshmi Nagar, Aarampakkam village, Padappai village and post
-601 301, Kundrathur taluk, Kanhipuram district
13.KANAGA w/o Natarajan, No.27, Tharathamman Kovil street, Valathi post- 604208, Melaiyunur Taluk, Villupuram District
14.KOMATHI w/o Natarajan, No.27, Tharathamman Kovil street, Valathi post- 604208, Melaiyunur Taluk, Villupuram District
15.SARAVANA BABU w/o Natarajan, No.27, Tharathamman Kovil street, Valathi post- 604208, Melaiyunur Taluk, Villupuram District
16.PADMANABHAN w/o Natarajan , No.27, Tharathamman Kovil street, Valathi post- 604208, Melaiyunur Taluk, Villupuram District
17.The District Collector Of Villupuram, Villupuram
18.The Revenue Tahsildar, Melmalayanur Taluk, Melmalayanur Taluk, Villupuram District.
__________ Page 12 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/12/2025 03:54:11 pm ) SA No. 161 of 2010 DR.R.N.MANJULA, J.
GSK SA No. 161 of 2010 and CMP.No.17867 of 2021 and CMP.No.28187 of 2025 and M.P.No.1 of 2010 __________ Page 13 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/12/2025 03:54:11 pm ) SA No. 161 of 2010 12-11-2025 __________ Page 14 of 14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 02/12/2025 03:54:11 pm )