Madras High Court
Velmurugan vs Ramar on 21 January, 2026
S.A.(MD)No.48 of 2018
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved On : 16.09.2025
Pronounced On : 21.01.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
S.A.(MD)No.48 of 2018
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.831 of 2018
Velmurugan ... Appellant
Vs.
1.Ramar
2.Muniasamy
3.Subramanian
4.Seethamani
5.Muthiah Nadar ... Respondents
PRAYER:- Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil
Procedure, to allow the Second Appeal by setting aside the judgment and
decree passed in A.S.No.27 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Sub
Court, Tenkasi, Dated 21.04.2017 whereby partly allowed the appeal
preferred against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.233 of 2009
on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tenkasi, dated
13.03.2014.
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 02:44:49 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.48 of 2018
For Appellant :Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram
Senior Counsel for
Mr.N.Ga.Natraj
For Respondents :Mr.D.Srinivasargavan for R1 to R4
No appearance for R5
JUDGMENT
The first defendant in O.S.No.233 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tenkasi has filed this Second appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.27 of 2014, whereby the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.233 of 2009 was reversed.
2.For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties hereinafter are referred according to their rank before the trial Court.
3.Case of the plaintiff:
The plaintiff's ancestor was one “Ra”.Adimoolanadar. He participated in the settlement proceedings conducted in the year 1964 under the Minor Inam Abolition Act and obtained ryotwari patta Nos.109 and 1429 in respect of the suit scheduled properties situated in the Kaluguneer Kulam Village, under the Uthumalai Jamin. Subsequently, during the UDR proceedings, the patta was mutated in the name of 2 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 02:44:49 pm ) S.A.(MD)No.48 of 2018 “Ra”.Adimoolanadar. His name was also entered in the adangal. Item No. 2 of the suit schedule property belonged to another ancestor, Narayana Nadar. On the basis of an oral partition between the plaintiff's father “Ra”.Adimoolanadar and the Narayana Nadar, the entire suit scheduled property devolved upon the plaintiff's father. After his demise, the plaintiff, as a legal heir, became entitled to the suit schedule property and has been enjoying the same. While so, the first defendant claimed title over a portion of the suit schedule property based on a sale deed dated 16.12.1991, allegedly executed by one “Aa”.Adimoolanadar, in respect of lands situated in Survey Nos.359/3A, 3B, 3C, 357/7A, 7B and 7C.
Similarly, the second defendant claimed to have purchased the property in survey No.359/3A. In view of fraudulent claim made by the defendants, the plaintiff issued a legal notice and filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession of the suit schedule properties.
4.Case of the first defendant/appellant:
The case of the first defendant is that the property originally 3 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 02:44:49 pm ) S.A.(MD)No.48 of 2018 belonged to one “Aa”.Adimoola Nadar and not to “Ra”.Adimoolanadar as claimed by the plaintiff. He purchased the property from “Aa”.Adimoolanadar for valid consideration and has been in possession and enjoyment thereof. He planted tamarind trees after obtaining a loan under the “Tanita” scheme floated by the Government. During the UDR proceedings, a separate patta was issued in his name for the property purchased by him, and he has been paying kist separately. He has been enjoying the property from the year 1981 onwards without any objection from the plaintiff and, therefore, has perfected title by adverse possession.
4.1.It is further contended that a portion of the property was acquired by the Government for laying a road. After such acquisition, the remaining properties have been in the enjoyment of the first and the second defendants. The plaintiff has never been in possession of the properties comprised in Survey Nos.359/3B and 7B. Since the Government was not impleaded as a party, the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties.
4.2.The second defendant filed a written satement on similar lines, denying the plaintiff's title and asserting independent ownership over the 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 02:44:49 pm ) S.A.(MD)No.48 of 2018 properties claimed by him. The learned trial judge, upon framing the necessary issues and after evaluating the oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove both title and possession. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.27 of 2014.
5.The learned first appellate judge allowed the appeal and decreed the suit, holding that the plaintiff had established title and that the defendants had failed to do so. Challenging the same, the first defendant alone has filed this Second Appeal.
6.At the time of the admission, this Court admitted the Second Appeal on the following substantial questions of law and posted the case for final disposal on 24.02.2025:
1.Whether the 1st Appellate Court is correct in decreeing the suit in part regarding title when admittedly the original survey number have been sub-divided long back and possession of land is with Mr.Surendran and Government of Tamilnadu as absolute title holders regarding their extent of land?
2.Whether the suit can be decreed inspite of the 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 02:44:49 pm ) S.A.(MD)No.48 of 2018 raising of the plea of non-joinder of necessary parties in the light of particulars of the parties were furnished?
3.Whether the suit can be decreed when it is violation of Order 7 Rule 3 of CPC by not furnishing the correct survey numbers, correct boundaries and correct extent as per the revenue records as on the date (01.06.2009) of the filing of the suit and in such manner leading to inexecutability of decree?
4.Whether the 1st appellate Court is correct in decreeing the suit for declaration and injunction when none of the predecessor-in-title or adjacent land owners have been examined and in particular without any correlation documents or oral evidence; except the interested testimony of P.W.1?
7. Submissions of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant:
Mr.S.Meenakshi Sundaram, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the trial Court, after a detailed analysis of oral and documentary evidence, rightly concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove the title and possession. The plaintiff failed to produce any document to establish devolution of title from Ra.Adimoolanadar. However, the learned first appellate Judge, particularly in paragraph Nos. 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 02:44:49 pm ) S.A.(MD)No.48 of 2018 15, 19, 20, 21 and 22, wrongly shifted the burden of proof on the defendants and decreed the suit merely on the basis of an extract of the settlement register (Ex.A2), without examining any official to prove its authenticity.
7.1.Learned Senior counsel further contended that even as per the evidence of P.W.1, the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property and, therefore, the suit ought to have been one for recovery of possession. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2023 (1) MLJ (SC) 485.
7.2.It was also submitted that the appellate Court reversed a well-
reasoned judgment of the trial Court without assigning cogent reasons, contrary to settled principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
8.Submissions on behalf of the respondent:
Mr.D.Srinivasaragavan, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the first appellate Court, being the final Court of fact finding, rightly held that the plaintiff established title through revenue 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 02:44:49 pm ) S.A.(MD)No.48 of 2018 records, including the A-Register and settlement register extract. Once title was established, the burden shifted to the defendants, who failed to prove that their vendor had title. The plea of adverse possession was also rightly rejected.
9.This Court considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the materials available on record.
10.Discussion and findings The plaintiff's specific case is that his father's ancestor “Ra”.Adimoolanadar, obtained settlement patta in respect of the A schedule property, and the same was entered in the settlement register, followed by mutation in the A-register. The B schedule property is claimed through Narayana Nadar, alleged to be the brother of Adimoolanadar, and an oral partition is pleaded. On that basis, the plaintiff claims exclusive title. It is well settled that a plaintiff must prove his own case independently and cannot rely on the weakness of the defendant's case. In order to establish title, the plaintiff relied solely on 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 02:44:49 pm ) S.A.(MD)No.48 of 2018 an extract of the settlement register (Ex.A2). However, no document was produced to show participation in settlement proceedings, issuance of settlement patta, or the order leading to such entry. No official was examined to prove the extract.
11.In the considered opinion of this Court, the learned appellate Judge erred in holding that the settlement register extract alone was sufficient to prove title, particularly when the defendants disputed title and produced earlier title deeds. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Tamil Nadu v. Ramalinga Samigal Mutt reported in (1985) 4 SCC 10, the civil Court's jurisdiction to adjudicate on the real nature of the land is not ousted by reason of the Settlement Officer's decision to grant or refuse to grant a patta. The decision of the revenue authorities, therefore, does not, in any manner, hinder the civil Court from exercising its jurisdiction.”
12.The defendants produced Ex.B1, a title deed dated 08.02.1932 and a subsequent sale deed dated 1.12.1991. The patta stood in the name of the first defendant. Except settlement register extract Ex.A2, the 9 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 02:44:49 pm ) S.A.(MD)No.48 of 2018 plaintiff produced no document to establish title. The burden of proof under Section 102 and 103 of the Indian Evidence Act squarely lay on the plaintiff. Instead, the appellate Court focused mainly on alleged defects in the defendants' title, which is legally impermissible. Accordingly, this Court holds that the plaintiff failed to prove title, whereas the defendants established title through documentary evidence and hence, the defendants plea of adverse possession need not be gone into.
13.The plaintiff also admitted that he was not in possession of the property. A portion had been acquired by the Government for laying road. In such circumstances, a suit for declaration and injunction without seeking recovery of possession is not maintainable. Reliance placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2023 (1) MLJ (SC) 485 is well founded. The finding of lawful possession in favour of plaintiff by the appellate Court is perverse and unsustainable.
14.In the impugned judgment, the first appellate Court has rendered findings contrary to the record and without proper appreciation 10 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 02:44:49 pm ) S.A.(MD)No.48 of 2018 of the settled principles governing the burden of proof. The Court has proceeded solely on the basis of the alleged settlement patta proceedings, while completely ignoring the defendant's vendor ancestral title documents, in particular the defendant's vendor ancestral document dated 02.04.1932. Such findings are perverse, being based on improper consideration of material evidence and misapplication of law. Therefore, this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is empowered to interfere with and set aside the findings, as the errors involved are not merely factual but raise substantial questions of law arising from erroneous legal inference drawn from admitted facts.
15.In view of the above reasoning, this Court is inclined to set aside the judgment of the learned first appellate Judge and restore the well reasoned judgment passed by the learned trial Judge where under dismissed the suit in O.S.No.233 of 2009 in so far as the property of the appellant alone by answering all the substantial questions of law framed in favour of the appellant. Since, there was no appeal on behalf of the second defendant, this Court is not inclined to set aside the decree 11 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 02:44:49 pm ) S.A.(MD)No.48 of 2018 against him vide impugned judgment.
16.Accordingly, the Second Appeal is partly allowed in the following terms:
16.1.The judgment and decree dated 21.04.2017 passed in A.S.No. 27 of 2014 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tenkasi, is set aside partly by allowing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.233 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Tenkasi, dated 13.03.2014 with regard to the appellant's property alone and as such judgment and decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.233 of 2009 is restored with regard to the appellant's property alone. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
21.01.2026
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
sbn
12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 02:44:49 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.48 of 2018
To
1.The Additional Sub Court,
Tenkasi.
2.The Additional District Munsif Court,
Tenkasi.
13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 02:44:49 pm )
S.A.(MD)No.48 of 2018
K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.
sbn
S.A.(MD)No.48 of 2018
and
C.M.P.(MD).No.831 of 2018
21.01.2026
14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/02/2026 02:44:49 pm )