Madras High Court
C. Murugan (Deceased) vs Madhu (Died) on 6 June, 2025
Author: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
Bench: Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup
S.A.No.1153 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.06.2025
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP
Second Appeal No.1153 of 2013
and M.P.No.1 of 2013
---
1. C. Murugan (Deceased)
2. Sakkubai
3. Ravi
4. Ramesh
5. Mohan
6. Sujatha
7. Thilagam .. Appellants
(Appellants 2 to 7 were brought on record
as LRs of the Deceased sole Appellant vide
order of the Court dated 30.10.2015 made in
M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2014 in S.A.No.1153 of 2013)
Versus
1. Madhu (Died)
2. Pushpa
3. Govindaraj
4. Samudi .. Respondents
(Respondents 2 to 4 were brought on record as
LRs of the deceased sole Respondent vide order
of the Court dated 15.03.2022 made in
CMP No.3550 of 2022 in S.A.No.1153 of 2013)
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure
against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2012 passed in A.S. No. 42 of
2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruppattur, Vellore District
confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2010 passed in O.S. No. 202
of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruppattur.
1/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:17:58 pm )
S.A.No.1153 of 2013
For Appellants : Mr. C. Prakasam
For Respondents 2 to 4 : Mr. P.A. Sudhesh Kumar
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal had been filed to set aside the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2012 passed in A.S. No. 42 of 2010 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Tiruppattur, Vellore District confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2010 passed in O.S. No. 202 of 2005 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tiruppattur.
2. The learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that the first Appellant is the Plaintiff in O.S.No.202 of 2005 before the learned District Munsif, Tirupattur. He has filed the suit for declaration of title to the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The Defendant claimed it is a land of Pudupettai Sri Vishnu Sivalaya Temple. The Plaintiff had purchased the land for Rs.97/- in the year 1970. Therefore, he had not registered it as per Registration Act, since the value is less than Rs.100/-. The suit property is a house site in S.No.182/B to the extent of 9 cents. The vendor of the Plaintiff was in possession of the property for generations. While so, the Defendants having no right to claim the property, 2/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:17:58 pm ) S.A.No.1153 of 2013 claimed it as though it belonged to Pudupettai Sri Vishnu Sivalaya Temple and attempted to dispossess the Plaintiff from the suit property. If that be so, the Authorities of the Pudupettai Sri Vishnu Sivalaya Temple ought to have issued notice to the Plaintiff. Since the Defendant had attempted to interfere, the Plaintiff was forced to file the suit seeking declaration of title and permanent injunction. The Defendant entered appearance and filed written statement disputing the claim of the Plaintiff. The learned District Munsif, Tirupattur framed issues and proceeded with the trial. During trial, the Plaintiff had examined himself as P.W-1 and marked documents Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-15. The sale deed in favour of the Plaintiff was also marked as Ex.A-1. The other documents are house tax receipts of Tirupattur Municipality, Chitta, Patta and Adangal. Also he had furnished house tax receipts for payment of tax to the local body. The Plaintiff had examined 2 other witnesses in support of his case. The Defendant examined himself as D.W-1. He had marked documents on his side as Ex.B-1 to Ex.B-9. Ex.B-1 is the Gift deed in favour of the Pudupettai Sri Vishnu Sivalaya Temple. Ex.B-2 to Ex.B-9 are the rental receipts. On assessment of the evidence of the Plaintiff and Defendants, the learned District Munsif dismissed the suit by judgment dated 28.09.2010.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the Plaintiff before the learned District 3/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:17:58 pm ) S.A.No.1153 of 2013 Munsif, Tirupattur preferred Appeal before the learned Sub Judge, Tirupattur in A.S.No.42 of 2010. The Appeal in A.S.No.42 of 2010 was also dismissed on 31.01.2012 thereby dismissing the suit preferred by Plaintiff in O.S.No.202 of 2005. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Appeal, the Plaintiff has filed this Second Appeal.
4. The learned Counsel for the Appellants invited the attention of this Court to the plaint filed by the Plaintiff in O.S.No.202 of 2005, the written statement filed by the Defendant in O.S.No.202 of 2005 and the judgment of the learned District Munsif in O.S.No.202 of 2005, dated 28.09.2010 wherein after elaborate discussion, the learned District Munsif had answered the Issue Nos. 1 to 4 as under:
“ vGtpdh 1 kw;Wk; 3 :
7/ /// ,j;jifa R{H;epiyapy; th/rh/M-1 Mtzk; bry;yj;jf;fjy;y vd;W Kot[ bra;aJ. brd;dg;gbrl;o kw;Wk; g{thf brl;o thjpfF ;
fpuak; bfhLj;jJ bry;yhJ vd;Wk;. ,j;jhthtpy; ,e;J mwepiyaj;Jiwapdiu jug;gpduhf nrh;f;ftpy;iy vd;w gpujpthjpapd; Tw;iw mog;gilahf itj;J ghh;fF ; k; nghJ ,e;J mwepiyaj;Jiw rhh;ghf mjd; Ma;thsh; gp/th/rh-3 Mf rhl;rpak; mspj;J mr;rhl;rpak; gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;Ls;sjhy; mtiu jug;gpduhf nrh;f;f ntz;oa mtrpakpy;iy vd nkw;fz;l vGtpdhf;fSf;F tpil mspf;fg;gLfpwJ/ vGtpdh 2 kw;Wk; 4:
8/ nkw;fz;l vGtpdhf;fspy; th/rh/M-1 Mtzk; bry;yj;jf;fjy;y vd;W Kot[ bra;Js;s gl;rj;jpy;;. thjp nfhUk; ghpfhu';fs; fpilf;fj;jf;fjy;y vd;W thjpf;F vjpuhf Kot[ bra;ag;gLfpwJ.” 4/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:17:58 pm ) S.A.No.1153 of 2013
5. The learned Counsel for the Appellants also invited the attention of this Court to the grounds of Appeal raised by the Plaintiff as Appellant in A.S.No.42 of 2010 and also the discussion of evidence and re-appreciation of evidence by the learned Sub Judge, Tirupattur in A.S.No.42 of 2010 dated 31.01.2012.
6. The learned Counsel for the Appellants invited the attention of this Court to the discussion of the evidence by the learned first Appellate Judge. The learned Sub Judge, Tirupathur, as first Appellate Judge, while dismissing the Appeal, had arrived at the following conclusion:
“15/ //// nkYk; th/rh/M-2 gl;lhit tH';fpa tl;lhl;rpah; The Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983-y; rl;lg;gphpt[ 3y; fz;Ls;s tHpfhl;Ljy;fspd; go gpdg; w;wp tH';fg;gltpy;iy vd;W nkny brhd;d ghuhf;fspy; jPh;t[ fhzg;gl;Ls;sJ/ mt;thW fpiuag;gj;jpuk; th/rh/M-1d; K:yk; jhthr; brhj;ij nky;KiwaPll; hsh;-thjpahdth; tpiyf;F th';fpas [ ;shh; vd;gij tha;bkhHpr; rhl;rpaj;jpd; K:yk; epUgzk; bra;ag;glhj epiyapy;. gl;lh th/rh/M2 rhl;rpaj;jpd; K:yk; epU:gzk; bra;ag;glhjepiyapy;. gl;lh th/rh/M/2 tl;lhl;rpauhy; Kiwahd tprhuizf;Fg; gpd;dpl;LThe Tamil Nadu Patta Pass Book Act, 1983-y; rl;lg;gphpt[ 3y; fz;Ls;s tHpfhl;Ljy;fspd; go gpd;gw;wp tH';fg;gltpy;iy vd;W jPh;khdpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjhYk; nky;KiwaPll; hsh;;- thjpahdth; jhthr; brhj;J nky;KiwaPl;lhsh;- ; thjpf;Fg; ghj;jpag;gl;lJ vd;W tpsk;g[if ghpfhuKk; epue;ju cWj;Jf;fl;lisg; ghpfhuKk; bgw mUfij mw;wth; vd;W ,k;nky;KiwaPlL ; ePjpkd;wj;jhy; jPht ; [ fhzg;gLfpwJ/ vdnt tprhuiz ePjpkd;wj;jpy; mry; tHf;if js;Sgo bra;J gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;l jPh;gg; [k;. jPhg; ;ghiza[k; rhpahdJ vd;Wk;. tprhuiz ePjpkd;wj;jpy; gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;l jPh;g;gk[ ; jPhg; ;ghizapy; jiyapl ve;jtpj Kfhe;jpuKk; ,y;iy vd;Wk;. ,e;j nky;KiwaPL epahakhd rhpahd fhuz';fSf;fhf nky;KiwaPll; hsh;-thjpahy; jhf;fy; bra;ag;gltpy;iy vd;gjhy; ,e;j nky;KiwaPL epiyf;ffj;jf;fjy;y vd;W Kot[r; bra;J ,e;j nky;KiwaPL js;Sgo bra;J ,e;j gpur;rpidfSf;F jPht ; [ fhzg;gLfpwJ/ 5/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:17:58 pm ) S.A.No.1153 of 2013 16/ Kothd tprhuiz ePjpkd;wj;jpy; mry; tHf;F vz;/202-2005y; 28/09/2010e; njjpapy; gpwg;gpf;fg;gl;l jPh;gg; [ kw;Wk; jPh;g;ghizia Ch;$pjk; bra;J ,e;j nky;KiwaPL bryt[j;jbjhifa[ld; js;Sgor; bra;ag;gLfpwJ/”
7. It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Defendant in the suit claims that he is authorised to act on behalf of the Pudupettai Sri Vishnu Sivalaya Temple. No responsible Officer was examined on behalf of the Pudupettai Sri Vishnu Sivalaya Temple. The learned Sub Judge failed to consider the grounds raised in the Appeal in deciding the point for determination and had adopted the reasoning of the learned District Munsif, Tirupattur in dismissing the suit and thereby confirmed the judgment of the learned District Munsif, Tirupattur.
8. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the unreported judgment in S.A.No. 285 of 2021, dated 29.02.2024, which is also the suit for bare injunction wherein the learned Judge of this Court allowed the Second Appeal and set aside the concurrent finding of the trial Court as well as the Appellate Court.
9. The learned Counsel for the Appellant invited the attention of this Court to Para 12 of the judgment in S.A.No.285 of 2021 which is extracted as under:
6/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:17:58 pm ) S.A.No.1153 of 2013 “12. The case of the deceased plaintiff was that she had orally purchased the suit property from the first defendant who was her brother-in-law and that she has been in possession and enjoyment of the same from the date of the purchase and therefore, she had perfected title by adverse possession. However, there is no pleading as to the date on which this oral sale had taken place.” Relying on the above judgment, the learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the facts of the above unreported judgment squarely applies to the facts of this Case. Therefore in the light of the judgment in S.A.No.285 of 2021, he seeks to allow the Second Appeal and set aside the concurrent finding of the learned District Munsif in O.S.No. 202 of 2005 and A.S.No. 42 of 2010, dated 31.01.2012.
10. The learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Respondent was a tenant in the property just like the Appellant herein. The suit property to an extent of 33 feet East-West and 11 feet North-South was valued as Rs.50/- in the year 1930 which will fetch more than Rs.100/- in the year 1970. The suit property was originally settled by a settlement deed executed by one Rasappa Chettiyar under Ex.B-1. Rasappa Chetty settled the property in favour Chennappa Chetty, Poovaga Chetty and Muthusamy Chetty with a direction that the property is to be maintained as Nandavanam for Pudupettai Sri Vishnu Sivalaya Temple. In the year 1970, the said Chennappa Chetty and Poovaga Chetty in whose favour Rasappa Chetty had executed a 7/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:17:58 pm ) S.A.No.1153 of 2013 settlement deed instead of maintaining it as Nandavanam meaning garden to raise flowering plants to provide flowers to Pudupettai Sri Vishnu Sivalaya Temple had contrary to the recitals under exhibit B-1 in the year 1930 executed by Rasappa Chetty had acted fraudulently thereby defeating the intention of the person who created the document believing the said Chennappa Chetty and Poovaga Chetty executed sale deed in favour of the Appellant herein in the year 1970 for Rs.97/- less than Rs.100/- only to avoid registration. That was the fraud committed by the Plaintiff in the suit/the Appellant before the Court in collusion with Chennappa Chetty and Poovaga Chetty who had acted violating the recitals under the 1930 settlement deed settling the property in favour of the Pudupettai Sri Vishnu Sivalaya Temple to maintain the property as Nandavanam meaning garden of flowering plants to meet the Pooja requirements of the Pudupettai Sri Vishnu Sivalaya Temple. All the three persons are from different families. Two persons who had sold the properties to the Plaintiff are not from the common ancestors to claim that the suit property as the ancestral property. They colluded together. Therefore, the judgement of the learned District Munsif and the learned Sub Judge are reasonable and it does not warrant any interference by this Court. The Plaintiff, even after the Defendant had raised objections disputing the claim of the Plaintiff in the written statement, failed to implead the Hindu Religious 8/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:17:58 pm ) S.A.No.1153 of 2013 and Charitable Endowment Department as a proper and necessary party as the settlement deed executed under Ex.B-1 and had handed over possession to the Pudupettai Sri Vishnu Sivalaya Temple. Therefore, the Pudupettai Sri Vishnu Sivalaya Temple is a necessary party. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department is a necessary party. The Plaintiff had wantonly not impleaded the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department as a necessary party. Ex.A-1 sale deed relied by the Plaintiff is a colluded, created and false document by collusion with Chennappa Chetty and Poovaga Chetty. The Patta granted to the Plaintiff by the Tahsildar is without verification of title. The stamp paper for executing sale deed under Ex.A-1 was purchased at Vellore whereas the property was at Tiruppattur.
11. The learned Counsel for the Respondents invited the attention of this Court to the discussion of evidence by the Appellate Court in paragraph 15 (extracted in paragraph 6 above). The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department official was summoned by the Defendant and examined as D.W-3. The claim of the Plaintiff was refused by both the Courts. Therefore, the same does not warrant any interference by this Court.
12. On 19.04.2022, when this Second Appeal was came up for 9/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:17:58 pm ) S.A.No.1153 of 2013 admission, the following substantial questions of law were framed for consideration of this Second Appeal and they are as follows:-
(i) Whether both the Courts erred in not granting the relief of permanent injunction sought for by the Plaintiff inspite of giving a specific finding to the effect that the Plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property?
(ii) If the HR & CE Department is in control of the suit property along with Pudupettai Sri Vishnu Sivalaya Temple, whether the Plaintiff can be evicted from the suit property only by following due process of law?
(iii) Whether the Defendant has the locus standi to question the possession of the Plaintiff if really the HR & CE Department is in control of the suit property?
13. Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants and the learned Counsel for the Respondents and perused the rulings cited by the learned Counsel for the Appellant. Perused the typed set containing plaint, written statement, judgement dated 28.09.2019 passed in O.S.No. 202 of 2005 by the learned District Munsif, Tiruppattur, Vellore District and the judgment dated 31.01.2012 passed in A.S.No. 42 of 2010 by the learned Sub Judge, Tiruppattur, Vellore District.
14. On consideration of rival submissions, even though the Defendant had raised the plea that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department is in control of the suit property along with the Pudupettai Sri 10/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:17:58 pm ) S.A.No.1153 of 2013 Vishnu Sivalaya Temple, the Plaintiff had not taken steps to implead the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department as proper and necessary party in the suit. The Defendant had clearly raised the plea that the suit is not maintainable without impleading the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department. The Defendant has locus standi when he claims that he is also tenant under the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department in the same temple premises which was settled by Rasappa Chetty as Nandavanam for the Pudupettai Sri Vishnu Sivalaya Temple. Under those circumstances, the Plaintiff having not impleaded the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department gives presumption to the Court that the Plaintiff attempted to seek a decree behind the back of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department.
15. In the light of the above, the submission of the learned Counsel for the Respondents in the Second Appeal that the value of the property in the year 1930 is Rs.50/-, by the year 1970, it would surely be beyond Rs.100/-. Therefore, the Court has to draw adverse inference against the Plaintiff for evading registration as it involves avoiding registration. Therefore, the value of the property was shown as Rs.97/- is found justified. In the light of the above, it is clearly a suit created by collusion between the said Chennappa 11/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:17:58 pm ) S.A.No.1153 of 2013 Chetty and Poovaga Chetty in favour of the Plaintiff herein. That is why he had not registered the sale dead. Therefore, the finding of the learned trial Judge and the learned Appellate Judge that the Plaintiff had approached the Court without registering a document, therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled to injunction, is found acceptable. The ruling of this Court relied by the learned Counsel for the Appellant in the case of Anjalaiammal (Died) by LRs vs. Panchavarnam and two others in Second Appeal No.285 of 2021, dated 29.02.2024 is with regard to possession. The Defendant in that case had filed written statement admitting possession stating that the Plaintiff was permitted to take care of the agricultural property. In the light of such admission, the possession was accepted and therefore, permanent injunction was granted and declaration of title was refused. Here the Plaintiff is attempting permanent injunction without impleading necessary party. Along with that, the submission of the learned Counsel for the Defendant that the property that was valued as Rs.50/- in the year 1930 surely fetches more value in the year 1970. Whereas the Plaintiff had only to avoid registration as per the Transfer of Property Act reduced the property value by Rs.97/- only to avoid registration. In the light of the fact that the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department was not impleaded in spite of the written statement filed by the Defendant, the conduct of the Plaintiff in getting a sale deed from persons to 12/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:17:58 pm ) S.A.No.1153 of 2013 whom Rasappa Chetty had executed settlement deed to maintain the property as Nandavanam for the benefit of Pudupettai Sri Vishnu Sivalaya Temple is found against the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff had not approached the Court with clean hand. The Plaintiff is attempting to get a decree behind the back of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department and against the intention of the person who had executed settlement deed in the year 1930. Therefore, the substantial questions of law is answered against the Appellant/Plaintiff. Both the courts had given a concurrent finding against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff cannot seek a decree by relying on a judgment of this Court in the case of Anjalaiammal (Died) by LRs vs. Panchavarnam and two others in Second Appeal No.285 of 2021, dated 29.02.2024 where the facts of the case is different. Merely because the Plaintiff is in possession, a decree need not be granted. On appreciation of evidence, the learned District Munsif had rejected the claim of the Plaintiff. On re-appreciation of evidence, the Appellate Judge had also rejected the claim of the Plaintiff which is found proper.
16. In the light of the above discussion, the substantial questions of law are answered against the Appellants and in favour of the Respondents. 13/16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:17:58 pm ) S.A.No.1153 of 2013 In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 31.01.2012 passed in A.S. No. 42 of 2010 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Tiruppattur, Vellore District confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.09.2010 passed in O.S. No. 202 of 2005 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tiruppattur, is upheld. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
06.06.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
shl/srm
14/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:17:58 pm )
S.A.No.1153 of 2013
To
1. The Subordinate Court,
Tiruppattur, Vellore District.
2. The District Munsif Court,
Tiruppattur.
3. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
High Court Madras.
15/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:17:58 pm )
S.A.No.1153 of 2013
SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP, J
srm
Judgment made in
S.A.No.1153 of 2013
06.06.2025
16/16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/06/2025 01:17:58 pm )