Madras High Court
Seenivasan (Died) vs Jeyaraman (Died) on 31 March, 2022
1 S.A.(MD)No.156 OF 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 31.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
S.A.(MD)No.156 of 2010
1. Seenivasan (Died)
2. Rengasamy
3. Loganathan (Died) ... Appellants / Appellants /
Plaintiffs
4. Karthikayani
5. Padmavathi
(Appellants 4 & 5 were brought on record as LRs.
of the deceased 3rd appellant vide order dated
08.02.2019 made in C.M.P.(MD)No.7428 to 7430 of
2018)
6. S.Lakshmi
7. Senthilkumar
8. Sivakumar
9. S.Sasikumar
(Appellants 6 to 9 were brought on record as LRs.
of the deceased 1st appellant vide Order dated
24.02.2022 in C.M.P.(MD)No.1347 of 2022)
... Appellants
Vs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/9
2 S.A.(MD)No.156 OF 2010
1. Jeyaraman (Died)
2. Lakshmiammal
3. Saradha
4. Selvi ... Respondents / Respondents /
Defendants
5. Rukmani
6. Venkatesh
7. Elavarasan
8. Chakkaravarthy
(R-5 to R-8 were brought on record as LRs. of
the deceased R-1 vide Order dated 08.02.2019
in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010)
... Respondents
Prayer: Second appeal filed under Section 100 of
C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.130
of 2007 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Judge,
Madurai, dated 31.08.2009, confirming the Judgment and
Decree passed in O.S.No.294 of 1999 on the file of the District
Munsif Court, Tirumangalam dated 30.07.2007.
For Appellants : Mr.M.P.Senthil
For R-2 to R-4 &
R-8 : Mr.K.Hemakarthikeyan
For R-6 & R-7 : No appearance.
***
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2/9
3 S.A.(MD)No.156 OF 2010
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs in O.S.No.294 of 1999 on the file of the
District Munsif, Thirumangalam, are the appellants in this
second appeal.
2. The suit was filed for declaration and
consequential permanent injunction. The suit property is
comprised in Natham survey No.314/15 and measures 12 feet
east-west and 39 feet north-south. The defendants filed
written statement controverting the plaint averments. The
first and second plaintiff examined themselves as P.W.1 and
P.W.2. Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.26 were marked. On the side of the
defendants, as many as six witnesses were examined. Ex.B.1
to Ex.B.6 were marked. An Advocate Commissioner was
appointed and his report and plan were marked as Ex.C.1 and
Ex.C.2. After consideration of the evidence on record, the trial
Court by judgment and decree dated 30.07.2007, dismissed
the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff filed A.S.No.130
of 2007 before the II Additional Sub Court, Madurai. By the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
impugned judgment and decree dated 31.08.2009, the
decision of the trial Court was confirmed and the appeal was
dismissed. Challenging the same, this second appeal came to
be filed.
3. The second appeal was admitted on 09.03.2010 on
the following substantial question of law:-
“ Whether the Courts below are right in
dismissing the suit when the appellants established
the title and Ex.A.5 to 10 and A17 and D.W.1 and
D.W.2 admitted the enjoyment of the property by the
appellants? ”
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants
reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of
grounds and called upon this Court to answer the substantial
question of law in favour of the appellants and set aside the
impugned judgment and decree and decree the suit as prayed
for.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the
respondents submitted that the impugned judgment and
decree deserves to be confirmed.
6. I carefully considered the rival contentions and
went through the evidence on record.
7. It is no doubt true that patta in respect of the suit
property stands in the name of the plaintiffs. However, it is
well settled that where there are title documents, the revenue
record cannot prevail over the same. Both the parties have
adduced evidence. According to the plaintiffs, the suit
property is covered by their title documents. The Trial Court
had painstakingly gone through all the documents marked on
either side. The earliest document marked on the side of the
plaintiffs is Ex.A.3. It is a Will dated 22.02.1901 executed by
one Rengappa Reddiar. According to the plaintiffs, the suit
property along with other properties belonged to the said
Rengappa Reddiar. Rengappa Reddiar had two wives, namely,
Venkittammal and Alagammal. The suit property was
bequeathed in favour of Venkitammal. Venkitammal had three
daughters, namely, Alagammal, Seethammal and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Lakshmiammal. Lakshmiammal had a son by name Kumaru
Reddiar. Venkittammal and Azhagammal bequeathed their
share in the suit property in favour of Kumaru Reddiar and his
brother Chennama Reddiar under Ex.A.5 dated 11.12.1925.
Chennama Reddiar is said to have died without any children.
Seethammal released her share in the suit property in favour
of Kumaru Reddiar under Ex.A.6 dated 08.07.1953. Kumaru
Reddiar again had two wives, namely, Lakshmiammal and
Seethammal. The plaintiffs are the children born to
Seethammal. Thus, the plaintiffs have traced their title to the
ancient document dating back to the year 1901. The learned
counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that when
the document relied upon by the plaintiffs is more ancient
compared to the document relied upon by the defendants,
older of the two will have to be preferred. In this regard, he
placed reliance on the decision reported in 2011 (1) CTC 663
(A. Chandran and Ors. Vs. Periyammal). I am not able to
accept the said contention because the parties do not trace
their title to a common source. As the parties trace their title
through independent sources, the aforesaid principle cannot
have any application.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
8. Be that as it may, the trial Court after a careful
perusal of the four boundaries set out in the respective title
documents came to the conclusion that while there is
ambiguity in the boundary descriptions in the plaintiffs'
documents, the boundary descriptions in the defendants'
documents are more probable and consistent with their case.
Under Ex.A.15, Seethammal had purchased a piece of
property on the eastern side. Land belonging to one Subba
Reddiar was shown as the western boundary of the property.
Subba Reddiar is none other than the father of the defendants.
This completely tilted the case in favour of the defendants.
That apart, all the witnesses including the Sambandhi of the
plaintiffs who is the vendor in Ex.A.15 had also deposed in
favour of the defendants. These are the pure issues of fact.
The first appellate Court also confirmed the same. When the
Courts below have given concurrent findings in favour of the
defendants, I do not find any ground to interfere. The
substantial question of law is answered against the appellants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
9. The impugned judgments and decrees passed by
the Courts below are confirmed. The second appeal is
dismissed. No costs.
31.03.2022
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 II Additional Subordinate Judge,
Madurai.
2. The District Munsif,
Tirumangalam.
3. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
PMU
S.A.(MD)No.156 of 2010
31.03.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
