Madras High Court
Subramani @ Subramanian vs The Tahsildar on 3 June, 2021
S.A.(MD).No.326 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
S.A.(MD).No.326 of 2021
Subramani @ Subramanian ... Appellant/Appellant
-Vs-
1.The Tahsildar,
Peravoorani,
having his office at
Peravoorani Town and Taluk,
Pattukottai Munsif,
Thanjavur District.
2.The District Collector,
Thanjavur,
Having his office at
Vallam Road,
Thanjavur Town and Munsif.
3.Manimegalai.
4.Sakthi Vinayagam ... Respondents/Respondents
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code, against the Judgment and Decree, dated 24.02.2020 in A.S.No.9 of
2019 on the file of Learned Subordinate Judge, Pattukottai, confirming
the Judgment and Decree, dated 26.09.2018 in O.S.No.192 of 2015 on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/5
S.A.(MD).No.326 of 2021
the file of learned District Munsif, Pattukottai.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Sasikumar
For Respondents : Mr.R.Baskaran for R1 & R2
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff, who was unsuccessful before both the Courts below,
has filed the present second appeal before this Court.
2.The appellant / plaintiff filed a suit seeking for the relief of
declaration to declare him as the legal heir of deceased Panchu Chettiyar
and for other consequential reliefs. The suit was laid on the ground that
the appellant lived with his father at Cylone and his father died on
19.04.2011 after they returned back to India and were living at
Sornakkadu Village.
3.The defendants 3 to 5 also claimed to be the legal heir of late
Panchu Chettiyar. The fight between the parties seems to be with an
intention to claim a right over the properties left behind by Panchu
Chettiyar.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD).No.326 of 2021
4.Heard Mr.V.Sasikumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr.R.Baskaran, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 1 and
5.The Courts below on going through the documents filed by the
appellant and also the oral evidence of the appellant, came to a
conclusion that the appellant did not establish his claim that he is the son
of Panchu Chettiyar. The Courts below took into consideration the fact
that the appellant did not even give the name of his mother and did not
examine any independent witness, who could have spoken about the
relationship of the appellant and late Panchu Chettiyar. The Courts
below also found a lot of contradiction in certain documents that were
marked, wherein, the name of the father of late Panchu Chettiyar was
found to be changing in every other document. The Courts below also
found that the defendants failed to prove their relationship with late
Panchu Chettiyar. Even though an attempt was made by the appellant to
bring in some additional documents at the stage of appeal, it was found
that they had no relevance and it was not in any way helping the case of
the appellant.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD).No.326 of 2021
6.The findings given by both the Courts below are based on
appreciation of evidence and this Court does not find any illegality or
infirmity in those findings. This Court cannot undertake the exercise of
re-appreciation of the evidence and the same is beyond the scope of the
Second Appeal under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code. This Court
does not find any substantial question of law involved in the present case
and there are absolutely no merits in the second appeal.
7.In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
03.06.2021
Index :Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
TM
To
1.The Sub Judge, Pattukkottai.
2.The District Munsif, Pattukkottai.
3.The Record Keeper,
E.R/V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
S.A.(MD).No.326 of 2021
N.ANAND VENKATESH.J.,
TM
S.A.(MD).No.326 of 2021
03.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
