Madras High Court
Perumal vs Anuradha Chelladurai ... 1St on 25 June, 2021
1 S.A.NO.1301 OF 1999
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 25.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
S.A.No.1301 of 1999
Perumal ... Appellant/Appellant/
Plaintiff
Vs.
1. Anuradha Chelladurai ... 1st Respondent/Respondent/
Defendant
2. Babool
(R-2 is impleaded as party respondent
vide Order dated 11.08.2011 in
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010)
3. Sendur Pandi
(R-3 is impleaded vide Order dated
14.11.2016 in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2014)
... Respondents 2 & 3
Prayer: Second appeal filed under Section 100 of
C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree in A.S.No.83 of 1995
on the file of the Sub-Court, Tuticorin, dated 24.08.1998
confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No.248 of 1990 on
the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Turicorin, dated
18.07.1995.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/5
2 S.A.NO.1301 OF 1999
For Appellant : Mr.R.T.Arivukumar,
for Mr.N.GA.Nataraj.
For R-3 : Mr.J.Ashok
For R-1 & R-2 : No appearance.
***
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff in O.S.No.248 of 1990 on the file of the
Principal District Munsif, Tuticorin, is the appellant in this
second appeal.
2. The appellant filed the said suit seeking the relief
of declaration and recovery of possession. The suit was
instituted against one Anuradha Chelladurai. The plaintiff
examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.4. On
the side of the defendant, two witnesses were examined.
Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.9 were marked. An Advocate Commissioner was
appointed and his reports and plans were marked as Ex.C.1 to
Ex.C.6. The learned trial Judge by judgment and decree dated
18.07.1995 dismissed the suit. Questioning the same, the
plaintiff filed A.S.No.83 of 1995 before the Sub Court,
Tuticorin. The first appeal was also dismissed by judgment and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
3 S.A.NO.1301 OF 1999
decree dated 24.08.1998. Challenging the same, this second
appeal came to be filed.
3. This second appeal was admitted on the following
substantial question of law:-
“Whether both the Courts below failed to note that
the respondent cannot claim adverse possession on the
pleading and claims made by the respondent?“
4. Heard the learned counsel on either side.
5. It is not possible to grant relief to the appellant
because as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel
appearing for the third respondent, the suit property could not
be identified on ground, even though the Advocate
Commissioner was appointed and warrant was sought to be
executed on as many as three occasions. When the suit
property itself could not be identified, the finding of the first
appellate Court that the defendant had perfected title by
adverse possession cannot be sustained. Even though I answer
the substantial question of law in favour of the appellant, it is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
4 S.A.NO.1301 OF 1999
not possible to grant him any relief. In this view of the matter,
this second appeal is dismissed. However, liberty is given to
the appellant to file a proper suit for demarcation of the
property purchased by him vide Ex.A.1.
6. I make it clear that such suit will be heard entirely
on merits and the point of limitation will not be put against the
appellant. With this liberty, this second appeal is dismissed.
No costs.
25.06.2021
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
PMU
Note: In view of the present lock down owing to
COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be
utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the
copy of the order that is presented is the correct
copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To:
1. The Sub Judge,
Tuticorin.
2. The Principal District Munsif,
Turicorin.
3. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
5 S.A.NO.1301 OF 1999
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
PMU
S.A.No.1301 of 1999
25.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
