Madras High Court
Chinnadurai vs Velayutham on 28 February, 2022
S.A.No.1029 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.02.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH
S.A.No.1029 of 2012
and M.P.No.1 of 2012
1.Chinnadurai
2.Rajeswari
3.Alamelu
4.Anjalai ...Appellants
Vs.
Velayutham ... Respondent
PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the
Decree and Judgment dated 29.10.2010 in A.S.No.62 of 2007 on the file of
Additional Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai confirming the decree and
judgment date 18.06.2007 O.S.No.354 of 2005 on the file of Additional
District Munsif, Thiruvannamalai.
For Appellants : Mr.Prabakaran for Mr.G.Rajan
For Respondent : Mr.S.Vediappan
1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1029 of 2012
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs are the appellants in this Second Appeal.
2.The plaintiffs filed the suit seeking for the relief of declaration of
title and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendant
from in any way interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit
property.
3.The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit property along with other
properties originally belonged to one Palani gounder and his brother. There
was an oral partition between them and the suit property was allotted to
the share of Palani gounder. After his demise, it was allotted to the share of
Kandasamy in a partition that took place between Kandasami and his
brother.
4.The further case of the plaintiffs is that the said Kandasami
executed a registered Sale Deed dated 03.09.1998 in favour of the
plaintiffs and conveyed the suit property situated at S.No.49/2B/7A
measuring an extent of 0.13cents. The plaintiffs is thereby claiming to be
the absolute owner of the suit property and according to the plaintiff, the
2 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1029 of 2012
revenue record also stands in her name and she is cultivating in the said
property.
5.The grievance of the plaintiff is that one Veerabathran who had
purchased lands from the vendor of the plaintiff namely Kandasamy in
S.No.56/8B1 was attempting to trespass into the suit property and
dispossess the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff was forced to file the suit
seeking for the reliefs stated supra.
6.Both the Courts below on considering the oral and documentary
evidence and after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of
the case, found that the plaintiff has not made out a case and concurrently
held against the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs have filed
this Second Appeal.
7.Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and carefully perused
the findings rendered by both the Courts below.
8.It is seen from the findings of both the Courts below that the above
said Veerabathran and the plaintiff had purchased the properties under Exs.
B2 and B6 in S.Nos.49/2B/7 and 56/8B1 respectively. The property was
3 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1029 of 2012
sold in favour of Veerabathran on 05.04.1990. The very same property has
been purchased by the plaintiff under Sale Deed dated 03.09.1998 from
Kandasamy. Therefore, both the Courts below have found that the said
Kandasamy did not have any title to sell the same property in favour of the
plaintiff with respect to S.Nos.49/2B/7. In view of the same, both the
Courts below held that Ex.A1 does not convey any right or title in favour of
the plaintiffs. The Courts below rejected the patta and adangal extracts
marked as Exs. X1 to X3, since they were given based on Ex.A1 and Ex.A1
itself was held to be invalid.
9.Both the Courts below also appreciated the evidence of PW2 and
found that the plaintiffs did not establish any possession in the suit
property. Even though, the defendant has also not established the
possession, it is the plaintiffs who have to prove their case and they cannot
take advantage of the weakness in the defendant's case. Accordingly, both
the Courts below found that the plaintiff neither had the title nor the
possession in the suit property and rejected the suit filed by the plaintiff.
10.In the considered view of this Court, the findings of both the
Courts below are based on oral and documentary evidence and this Court
does not find any perversity in those findings. There is no ground to
4 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1029 of 2012
interfere with the same. In any event, no substantial questions of law are
involved in this second appeal.
11.In the result, the second appeal stands dismissed. Considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
28.02.2022
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
ssr
To
1.The Additional Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai.
2.The Additional District Munsif, Thiruvannamalai.
5 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1029 of 2012
N.ANAND VENKATESH.,J
ssr
S.A.No.1029 of 2012
and M.P.No.1 of 2012
28.02.2022
6 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
