Madras High Court
Kanniammal vs Ramakrishnan (Died) .... Plaintiff on 25 October, 2025
S.A.No.1279 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 09.10.2025
Pronounced on 25.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
S.A.No.1279 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009
and
C.M.P.No.17651 of 2021
1.Kanniammal
2.Palanimalai
3.Shanmugham ... Appellants / Defendants 1 to 3
Vs
Ramakrishnan (died) .... Plaintiff
1.Siva Prakasam ... 1st Respondent / 4th defendant
2.Kuppammal
3.Sekar (died)
4.Selvi
5.Sathya
6.Thamizharasan (minor)
7.Vishwa (minor)
[Respondents 6 and 7 are represented by their mother and
natural guardian Sathya]
[Respondents 5 to 7 are brought on record as L.Rs of R3
vide order of Court dated 09.06.2023 made in
CMP.No.18728 of 2021 in S.A.No.1279 of 2009]
... Respondents 2 to 7
1/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:32:07 pm )
S.A.No.1279 of 2009
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned I
Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram in A.S.No.88 of 2003 dated
11.9.2008 confirming the judgment and decree of the II Additional District
Munsif, Ulundurpet, made in O.S.No.100/1999 dated 28.06.2001.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Patrick
For Respondents : Mr.V.R.Thangavelu
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram in A.S.No.88 of 2003 dated 11.9.2008 confirming the judgment and decree of the II Additional District Munsif, Ulundurpet, made in O.S.No.100/1999 dated 28.06.2001.
2. Heard Mr.S.Patrick, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr.V.R.Thangavelu, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
3. The appellants are the defendants 1 to 3. The plaintiff who is now deceased, has filed a suit for declaration to declare that he is the owner of the 2/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:32:07 pm ) S.A.No.1279 of 2009 suit property and consequentially for a permanent injunction against the defendants 1 to 3 not to disturb his possession in the suit property. Pending the first appeal, the sole plaintiff died and hence, his legal heirs were impleaded as respondents 3 to 4 in the first appeal.
4.1 The short facts pleaded in the plaint are as follows:
The suit property was originally owned by one Appu Padayachi, who is the grandfather of the plaintiff. The suit property is described as a vacant land having an extent of 1.12 cents in Sy.No.172/9 in Thirunavalur Village in Cuddalore District. The plaintiff's father is Govindasamy Padayachi. On 29.08.1946, Appu Padayachi had executed a conditional settlement deed in favour of Kasambu Ammal, the step mother of the plaintiff. As per the terms of settlement deed, Kasambu Ammal would enjoy the suit property till her lifetime and after her demise, her male descendants would inherit the property and in case, Kasambu Ammal did not have a male legal heir, the property would devolve on the plaintiff. Kasambu Ammal was in agreement to the settlement deed and had been in enjoyment of the suit property till her lifetime.
On 17.01.1971, Kasambu Ammal and plaintiff had executed a lease deed in favour of Abdul Rawther and subsequent to the discharge of the lease deed on 03.01.1974, the property came to the hands of the plaintiff. Kasambu Ammal is also stated to have died without any male legal heirs. Accordingly, as per the 3/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:32:07 pm ) S.A.No.1279 of 2009 settlement deed, the plaintiff had inherited the suit property and he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff has been paying the kists for the suit property, though the patta for the property stood in the name of Kasambu Ammal. In the year 1979, the plaintiff went to Bangalore on his avocation along with his family and had stayed there for three years, during which period, the suit property remained uncultivated. The plaintiff used to visit his native place once in a year and also maintained the suit property by cutting and removing the shrubs.
4.2 Be that as it may, sometime in 1996, it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the fourth defendant who has no connection to the suit property, had executed a sale deed fraudulently in favour of the first defendant. The fourth defendant is the son of Chinna Ananthayee Ammal, who is the cohabitant of plaintiff's father Govindasamy Padayachi. The fourth defendant had proclaimed title to the suit property through the said Chinna Ananthayee Ammal. The defendants 2 and 3 are the legal heirs of the first defendant. On coming to know about the fraudulent sale, the plaintiff had issued legal notice to the defendants 1 and 2 on 23.04.1996. However, the defendants did not respond to it. The defendants 1 to 3 who have no right over the suit property, also attempted to encroach the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the 4/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:32:07 pm ) S.A.No.1279 of 2009 suit in O.S.No.100 of 1999 before the II Additional District Munsif, Ulundurpet, seeking the above relief.
5. The fourth defendant did not contest the suit and he remained exparte. The first defendant had filed the written statement, which was adopted by defendants 2 and 3.
6.1 The written statement in brief are as follows:
Denying the total averments in the plaint, the defendants would submit that the suit property was originally owned by one Marimuthu Ammal and her son Kaliyappa Padayachi, who are the wife and son of Appu Padayachi. They executed a settlement deed in favour of Periya Annathayee Ammal, on the condition that she can be in enjoyment of the property during her life time and on her demise, the property would devolve on her legal heirs. Periya Annanthayee Ammal was in agreement to the terms in the settlement deed and was in enjoyment of the property. Periya Ananthayee Ammal was none other than the second wife of Kaliyappa Padayachi. Kaliyappa Padayachi was born to Appu Padayachi and Marimuthu Ammal. Chinna Annanthayee Ammal is the younger sister of Periya Ananthayee Ammal, whose son is the fourth defendant. During the lifetime of Periya Ananthayee Ammal, herself 5/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:32:07 pm ) S.A.No.1279 of 2009 and her nephew, the fourth defendant herein had executed a lease deed in favour of a third party. The said Periya Annathayee Ammal died issueless sometime in the year 1982. After her demise, the suit property was in possession and enjoyment of the fourth defendant and his mother Chinna Ananthayee Ammal, as they were the close relatives of Periya Ananthayee Ammal. The defendants would contend that Chinna Annathayee Ammal is the legally wedded wife of Govindasamy Padayachi and out of their wedlock, the fourth defendant was born. Therefore, the plaintiff description that the fourth defendant is a child born to Govindasamy Padayachi through his cohabitant is not correct.
6.2 The fourth defendant and his mother Chinna Ananthayee Ammal, who were in exclusive possession of the suit property, had sold the property in favour of the first defendant for a sale consideration. Thereafter, the defendants 1 to 3 were in enjoyment of the property. On 27.04.1984, the first defendant had executed an exchange deed with one Kannan. By virtue of the said exchange deed, the first defendant was exchanged with 73 ½ cents in Survey No.172/8 which is the property that was owned by Kannappa Padayachi. In turn Kannappa Padayachi had been given with 73 ½ cents in Survey No.172/9, the subject matter of suit property. Therefore, the first 6/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:32:07 pm ) S.A.No.1279 of 2009 defendant was in enjoyment of the above extent i.e., 73 ½ cents in Survey No.172/8 along with the 0.38 ¼ cents in Survey No.172/9, which is the remainder extent of the suit property. Thereafter, the said Kannan had sold 73 ½ cents in Survey No.172/9 (which was acquired by him through the exchange deed) to one Mani by virtue of a sale deed. According to the defendants 1 to 3, the said Kannappa Padayachi and Mani, who are omitted to be included in the suit, are also necessary parties to the suit proceedings. Therefore, the suit is barred for non-joinder of necessary parties and hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.
7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues:
“ 1 thjp tHf;Fiuapy;; nfhhpa[s;sJ nghd;W tpsk;g[ifg; ghpfhuk; bgWtjw;F chpik cilatuh> thjp cWj;Jf;fl;lis ghpfhuk; bgWtjw;F chpik cilatuh> 2/ 29/08/1946 ? md;W mg;g[ gilahr;rp. fhrhk;g[ mk;khs;
vd;gtUf;F vGjp itj;j jhd brl;oy;bkd;l; cz;ikahdJk;. jFjp tha;ejJkh > 7/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:32:07 pm ) S.A.No.1279 of 2009 3/ thjpa[k;. fhrhk;g[ mk;khSk; 17/01/1971 md;iwf;F xU nghf;fpag; gj;jpuk; vGjpf; bfhLj;J 03/01/1974 md;iwf;F igryhfptpl;ljh> 4/ tHf;Fr; brhj;J xU rpd;d Mde;jhap mk;khSf;F ghj;jpag;gl;ljh> 5/ rpd;d Mde;jhap mk;khs; nfhtpe;j rhkpapd; rl;lg;goahd thhprh > 6/ thjp nfhtpe;jrhkpapd; rl;lg;goahd thhprh > 7/ tHf;Fr; brhj;ij rpd;d Mde;jhap mk;khSk;. 4tJ vjph;thjpa[k; Kjy; gpujpthjpf;F xU gjpt[[g;gj;jpuk; K:yk; fpuak; bra;Jf;bfhLj;Js;shh;fsh > 8/ 27/04/1984 md;W hp/rh;nt be/172-8 0/98 brd;l; rk;ke;jkhf Kjy; gpujpthjpa[k; fz;zd; vd;gtUk; nrh;e;J bra;Jf; bfhz;l ghpth;j;jid gj;jpuk; jFjpthae;jjh > 9/ tHf;Fr; brhj;jpy; 0/38 ¼ brd;l; tp!;jPuzj;jpd; Kjy;
gpujpthjp cs;shuh > 10/ Kjy; gpujpthjp vh;epiy clik vd;gjd; K:yk; chpik fpilj;Js;sjh > 11/ ghpfhuKk; bryt[j; bjhifa[k;/” 8/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:32:07 pm ) S.A.No.1279 of 2009
8. During the course of the trial, on the side of the plaintiff two witnesses were examined, of whom, P.W.1 is the plaintiff. He has produced 11 documents and they were marked as Exs.A1 to A11. On the side of the defendants, the second defendant was examined as D.W.1 and two other individual witnesses have been examined as D.W.2 and D.W.2 and Exs.B1 to B15 were marked on the side of the defendants.
9. At the conclusion of the trial and on considering the evidence on record, the Trial Court has decreed the suit and passed a preliminary decree as prayed. Aggrieved by the decree and judgment of the Trial Court, the defendants 1 to 3 preferred the First Appeal in A.S.No.88/2003. At the time of filing the first appeal, the plaintiff was dead and his legal heirs were arrayed as party-respondents 3 to 5 in the appeal. In the First Appeal, the fourth defendant was arrayed as the second respondent. The First Appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 11.09.2008 had dismissed the appeal, confirming the decree of the Trial Court.
10. The defendants who were unsuccessful before the Courts below, has filed the Second Appeal. And the Second Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
9/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:32:07 pm ) S.A.No.1279 of 2009 "1) Whether the Courts below are correct in deciding the title and possession of the suit property based on the ancient documents neglecting the recent documents from the year 1979 sale deed, 1984 exchange deed, mortgage deed, patta, chitta, adangals and kist receipts which are in favour of appellants?
2) Whether the Courts below are correct in granting a decree both for permanent injunction and recovery of possession for the very same suit property without any material evidence, reasons and findings?
3) Whether the First Appellate Court can admit and mark the additional documents Exs.A.12 to A18 without giving any finding whether these documents are essential to decide the issues and without following the procedure contemplated under Order 41 Rule 27 C.P.C.?
4) Whether the courts below are correct in holding that the purchasers who purchased 73 ½ cents out of 1.12 acres of suit property long before the filing of the suit are not necessary parties to decide the title, recovery of possession and for permanent injunction of entire suit property? and
5) Whether the decree and judgment of courts below are erroneous, illegal and contrary to law and without any material evidence? "
10/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:32:07 pm ) S.A.No.1279 of 2009
11. For the sake of convenient discussion in the Second Appeal, the parties are referred as per their rank in the plaint.
12.1 The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that both the prayer and the relief granted by the Court are speculative, without ascertaining whether the plaintiff was in possession of the suit property. It appears that the plaintiff had sought for a prayer alleging that in case the defendants 1 to 3 were put in possession of the suit property, the decree for recovery of possession should be granted to him. However, the Court has decreed the suit as prayed for, without ascertaining who is in possession of the suit property and to what actual relief the plaintiff was entitled. In addition, the Court have also allowed the relief of mesne profits without any discussion on the same. The relief seeking mesne profits will only presume the possession of the defendants 1 to 3 in the suit property. There is no issue framed in respect of the relief of mesne profits and non-joinder of necessary parties. As the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration, it is for him to prove that he is owner of the property.
12.2. The learned counsel would submit that Ext.B1, sale deed dated 19.08.1929 was executed by the original owner Marimuthu Ammal and her son Kaliyappa Padayachi in favour of Annanthayee Ammal, who is the daughter of 11/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:32:07 pm ) S.A.No.1279 of 2009 Kali Gounder. As per the terms of the above settlement deed, Ananthayee Ammal shall enjoy the suit property till her life time and on her demise, her legal heirs would inherit the suit property. On the other hand, if Ananthayee Ammal died issueless, the property would be inherited by the legal heirs of the executants of Ext.B1, namely Marimuthu Ammal and her son Kaliyappa Padayachi. Ananthayee Ammal died without having any issues of her own. The fourth defendant is the son of Chinna Ananthayee Ammal, who is the sister of the Ananthayee Ammal. Ananthayee Ammal is the wife of the Govindasamy Padayachi, who is none other than the father of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff and the fourth defendant are the sons of the Govindasamy Padayachi, who are born through his two wives. Since the fourth defendant was the nephew of Ananthayee Ammal, himself and his mother Chinna Ananthayee Ammal were in enjoyment of the property, Therefore, the fourth defendant also claims himself as the grandson of Appu Padayachi, as he was born to Govindasamy Padayachi, who is the son of Appu Padayachi. So the fourth defendant can also be construed as the legal heir of the executants of Ext.B1, namely Marimuthu Ammal and Kaliyappa Padayachi ( wife and son of Appu Padayachi).
12/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:32:07 pm ) S.A.No.1279 of 2009 12.3 The fourth defendant along with her mother Chinna Annanthayee Ammal had executed a sale deed in favour of the first defendant on 12.02.1979 through Ext.B11. From the date of purchase of suit property i.e., on 12.02.1979, the first defendant was in possession and enjoyment. After having purchased the suit property measuring an extent of 1.12 acres through Ext.B11, the first defendant executed a exchange deed [Ext.B12] with Kannan Padayachi on 27.04.1984. Vide Ext.B12, an extent of 73 ½ cents in the suit property was transferred to Kannan Padayachi against an equal extent of land in other survey number. As such, the defendants 1 to 3 are in enjoyment of remaining 38 ¼ cents of lands in the suit property. Kannappa Padayachi in turn had sold the acquired extent of 73 ½ cents in the suit property to one Mani. Though all these transactions had occurred before the filing of the suit, the interested persons to the litigation have not been impleaded in the suit. The learned counsel would submit that the defendants 1 to 3 have raised the issue of non-joinder of necessary parties even at the earliest instance, but the Court below had ignored to deal with the same.
12.4 The learned counsel for the appellants would also submit that the Trial Court has made an observation that the plaintiff has not proved himself as the legal heir of Govindasamy Padayachi. In such a case, the 13/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:32:07 pm ) S.A.No.1279 of 2009 plaintiff cannot claim himself as the grandson of Appu Padayachi and consequently, the reverse devolution as contemplated in the Ext.A1, settlement deed dated 29.08.1946. Despite the same, the trial Court has granted the decree in favour of the plaintiff, which is not correct. Further, the Trial Court has not recorded any findings as to the pleadings of non-joinder of necessary parties. Without appreciating the evidence on record, the Trial Court has simply ignored the validity of Ext.B11 and Ext.B12.
13. At the instance of the defendants 1 to 3, the first appeal was filed. However, at the time of filing the First Appeal, the sole plaintiff was dead and therefore, his legal heirs and the fourth defendant was arrayed as party respondents in the first appeal. During the First Appeal proceedings, both the defendants and the legal heirs of plaintiff have filed applications to receive additional documents. Accordingly, on the side of plaintiffs, additional documents Ext.A12 to Ext.A18 came to be marked and on the side of the defendants, Ext.B16 to Ext.B18 were marked.
14. The learned counsel for the appellants would contend that with regard to marking of additional documents Ext.A12 to Ext.A18, there is no 14/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:32:07 pm ) S.A.No.1279 of 2009 pleadings in the suit, but the above documents have been permitted to be marked and considered by the first Appellate Court, and it is not correct.
15. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the original owner of the suit property namely Appu Padayachi had been in enjoyment of the suit property from time immemorial and he had dealt with the property in the year 1925, by mortgaging the same.
16. As per Ext.A1, settlement deed dated 28.08.1946 executed by Appu Padayachi in favour of Kasambu Ammal, the plaintiff can acquire the suit property in the absence of any male heir born to Kasambu Ammal. It is not in dispute that Kasambu Ammal had died without having any male heirs and hence, the plaintiff acquired title over the suit property. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are convinced with the title in favour of the plaintiff. However, the defendants claim title in respect of the suit property by making conflicting pleas. In the written statement of the first defendant, it is stated that Marimuthu Ammal and her son Kaliyappa Padayachi had executed Ext.B1 settlement deed in favour of Ananthayee Ammal. As per the terms of the settlement, after her death, the property would devolve on her close relatives and accordingly, the fourth defendant who is the nephew of the Periya 15/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:32:07 pm ) S.A.No.1279 of 2009 Annanthayee Ammal had acquired the suit property and had been in enjoyment of the same. But no documents have been produced to show that the fourth defendant had ever been in enjoyment of the suit property. The first defendant also claimed adverse possession and prescription of title without specifying the date on which they started to be in adverse possession to the knowledge of the original owner. As the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property goes with his lawful title, the Courts below have rightly granted the relief to the plaintiff.
17. Even though there exists a settlement deed of the year 1929 executed by one Marimuthu Ammal and her son Kaliyappa Padayachi in favour of Periya Ananthayee Ammal, the plaintiff claims that the suit property belonged to his grandfather Appu Padayachi. Both the plaintiff and the fourth defendant are the sons of Govindasamy Padayachi, but not born to the same wife of Govindasamy Padayachi. While the plaintiff was born to Govindasamy Padayachi through Pattammal, the fourth defendant was born to Govindasamy Padayachi through Chinna Ananthayee Ammal. In a way, both the plaintiff and the fourth defendant are the legal heirs of Appu Padayachi, as they were born to Govindasamy Padayachi, the son of Appu Padayachi, from whom the plaintiff traces his title.
16/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:32:07 pm ) S.A.No.1279 of 2009
18. Before proceeding the title of the fourth defendant or the defendants 1 to 3, it is essential to get a clarity as to whether the suit property was owned by Appu Padayachi or Marimuthu Ammal and Kaliyappa Padayachi. In fact, Kaliyappa Padayachi is also the son of Appu Padayachi born through his another wife Marimuthu Ammal. In other words, Kaliyappa Padayachi is the brother of Govindasamy Padayachi. From the settlement deed dated 19.08.1929, it is not known how the executants namely Marimuthu Ammal and her son Kaliyappa Padayachi had acquired title in respect of the suit property which was settled in favour of Ananthayee Ammal.
19. One important document that is helpful to the case on hand is Ext.A14, which is the maintenance case pleadings of Anandayee Ammal. In the said pleadings, it is stated that the suit property having an extent of 1.12 acres in R.S.No.172/9 belonged to Appu Padayachi. In fact, Appu Padayachi had dealt with the property through Ext.A12, which is a mortgage deed dated 27.04.1925 executed by Appu Padayachi in favour of one Govinda Pillai and later it was discharged in the year 1927. The documents Ext.A12 to Ext.A18 have been produced by the plaintiffs only before the First Appellate Court by 17/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:32:07 pm ) S.A.No.1279 of 2009 filing an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. In fact, the defendants have also produced Ext.B16 to Ext.B18 before the First Appellate Court only.
20. It is claimed by the learned counsel for the appellants that first Appellate Court had admitted the additional documents filed by the plaintiff, without any supporting pleadings made in the plaint. However, the defendants have not filed any revision petition to challenge the orders of the First Appellate Court for admitting the additional documents. Even though the plaintiff has not specifically pleaded about the mortgage deed dated 27.04.1925 and the maintenance case, it is pleaded in the plaint that the suit property was originally owned by Appu Padayachi. Having made such a plea, the plaintiff is entitled to produce the supporting documents to establish his pleadings that the Appu Padayachi was the original owner of the suit property. Hence, the First Appellate Court cannot be found fault for dealing with the additional documents marked on the side of both the plaintiffs and the defendants at the First Appellate stage.
21. Still due to certain clerical omission, these additional documents were omitted to be included in the list of documents prescribed in the First Appellate Court judgement. But the discussions made in the First Appeal 18/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:32:07 pm ) S.A.No.1279 of 2009 would show that the appellants/defendants have also filed three additional documents viz., Ext.B16 to Ext.B18 as how the plaintiffs have filed Ext.A12 to Ext.A18 as additional documents. As the defendants did not challenge the order allowing the additional documents and the plaintiff has made larger plea touching upon those documents, the substantial question of law No.3 with regard to the marking of additional documents Ext.A12 to Ext.A18 is answered against the appellants.
22. The other contention raised by the appellants is that the Courts have ignored the later title deeds produced by the defendants through which various interests have been created in favour of third parties, but had proceeded to decide the title of the plaintiff only basing on the ancient documents filed by the plaintiff. It is further contented that the plaintiff has not impleaded the necessary parties to the suit. It is further submitted that subsequent to the sale deed executed by the fourth defendant and Ananthayee Ammal in favour of Kanniammal, the first defendant on 12.02.1979, patta has been changed in her favour. This has been admitted by the plaintiff during his cross-examination and hence, the defendants have come into possession of the suit property adverse to the title of the original owners. It is further claimed by the defendants that subsequent to the sale in their favour vide Ext.B11, sale deed 19/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:32:07 pm ) S.A.No.1279 of 2009 dated 12.02.1979, further transactions said to have been made by the first defendant in favour of third parties and therefore, they ought to have been included as parties to the suit proceedings. So far as the plaintiff is concerned, he has filed the suit for declaration, prima facie against the fourth defendant, who has set up hostile title and the defendants 1 to 3 who have disturbed his possession by alleging the title acquired through the fourth defendant. When the plaintiff is not aware of the subsequent transactions entered by the fourth defendant, the plaintiff cannot be expected to include all the parties who have purchased the property in question, without verifying the title of his vendors. Even the third parties who have purchased the subject property, have not filed any applications to implead themselves as parties to the proceedings.
23. Before giving any significance to Ext.B11, sale deed dated 12.02.1979 executed by the fourth defendant, the defendants have failed to prove when onwards the fourth defendant had ousted the possession of the original owners. Even though the defendants claim for adverse possession, they have not mentioned the specific date on which and how they claimed possession over the property from the original owners or plaintiffs or predecessors-in-title. Insofar as the plaintiff is concerned, he has acquired title in pursuant to the terms of the settlement deed dated 29.08.1946 executed by 20/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:32:07 pm ) S.A.No.1279 of 2009 Appu Padayachi in favour of Kasambu Ammal. Since Kasambu Ammal did not have any male heirs, the plaintiff had acquired the suit property as the grandson of Appu Padayachi, and he being the owner of the suit property, was in enjoyment of the suit property. Sometime in 1996, when the plaintiff is said to have known about the sale deed fraudulently executed by the fourth defendant in favour of the first defendant, they issued a legal notice to the defendants, but the same has no response. That apart, the fourth defendant who had executed the sale deed in favour of the first defendant, did not choose to contest the suit and he remained exparte.
24. Even the defendants 1 to 3 have not produced any documents to show that the fourth defendant, Sivaprakasam and Chinna Anandayee Ammal had removed the plaintiff from the possession of the suit property at any point of time and that there are revenue records standing in their names. The patta that is said to have been issued in the name of the Kanniammal, the first defendant, is of the year 2001, and the same is evidenced by Ext.D13.
25. Though the learned counsel for the appellants/defendants submitted that the plaintiff himself had deposed that he had the knowledge of the patta that stood in the name of first defendant and that he had also admitted 21/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:32:07 pm ) S.A.No.1279 of 2009 it in his evidence. Perusal of the records would reveal that the evidence of the plaintiff is not specific as to the date on which he came to know about change of patta in the name of Kanniammal, the first defendant. And as and when the plaintiff came to know about the patta for the subject property stands in the name of the first defendant, he had given an application to the District Collector for change of patta and subsequently filed the suit as well. Therefore, the defendants cannot claim that they had been in enjoyment of the suit property without any objection from the plaintiff. The other documents which the appellants claim relevant to his possession, are subsequent to the suit and hence, much significance cannot be attached to the same. As stated already, the kist receipts that are produced in the name of the first defendant, are not supported with any evidence to show that the fourth defendant had actually handed over the possession of the suit property to the first defendant. The appellants/defendants had also not filed any counter suit to physically declare their title through adverse possession. In the absence of any documents to show that the fourth defendant had acquired title at any point of time, adverse to the interest of the plaintiff, the subsequent purchaser namely the first defendant cannot claim that the sale deed of the year 1979 and the subsequent documents should be given with more significance, by overlooking the ancient documents. The plaintiff has also proved the antecedents of the suit 22/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:32:07 pm ) S.A.No.1279 of 2009 property especially the title in favour of Appu Padayachi and later he had acquired title to the suit property as per the terms of the settlement deed dated 29.08.1946. Hence the Courts below are right in relying on the ancient documents of the plaintiff. And the substantial questions of law (1) & (4) are answered accordingly.
26. No doubt there is a confusion in framing the suit relief and granting of the relief by the Courts below. The plaintiff has claimed an alternate relief of recovery of possession in the event of defendants encroaching the suit property. The manner in which those prayers have been framed in the plaint, give rise to a mistaken understanding that the plaintiff has claimed both the reliefs. Basing on the above inadequacy in framing the prayer, the learned counsel for the appellants claimed that the recovery of possession and mesne profits sought by the plaintiff would presume that the defendants are in possession of the suit property. Such drafting is a clerical omission done by the Courts below, which cannot be exaggerated to arrive at a conclusion that the defendants had been in possession of the suit property.
27. The plaintiff has admitted the possession of the defendants over the suit property. A comprehensive reading of the whole plaint would only 23/26 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:32:07 pm ) S.A.No.1279 of 2009 convey that the plaintiff only asserts title and possession over the suit property. Hence, the isolated reading of confused coinage of relief and the clerical omissions of the Courts below cannot be considered as the rightful ground to reverse the judgement of the First Appellate Court. The Courts below have rightly appreciated the documents available on record and found that the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration and recovery of possession. Therefore, the questions of law (2) & (5) are answered accordingly.
28. In the result, the second appeal is dismissed and the judgment and decree of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, dated 11.09.2008 in A.S.No.88 of 2003 which confirmed the judgment and decree of the II Additional District Munsif, Ulundurpet, dated 28.06.2001 in O.S.No.100 of 1999, is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
25.10.2025
Index : Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes
ds
24/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:32:07 pm )
S.A.No.1279 of 2009
To :
1. The Judge
I Additional Sub Court
Villupuram.
2.The Judge
II Additional District Munsif
Ulundurpet.
3.The Section Officer
VR Section, High Court, Madras.
25/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:32:07 pm )
S.A.No.1279 of 2009
Dr.R.N.MANJULA, J.
ds
Pre-delivery Judgment in
S.A.No.1279 of 2009
25.10.2025
26/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/10/2025 04:32:07 pm )