Madras High Court
A.T.Karuppasamy vs N.Kalpana on 19 November, 2024
Author: R.Subramanian
Bench: R.Subramanian
A.S.No.666 of 2024
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.11.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
A.S.No.666 of 2024
and
C.M.P.Nos.21436 & 21442 of 2024
1.A.T.Karuppasamy
2.Durai
3.Kannan
4.Murugan @ Adayappa ...Appellants
Vs.
1.N.Kalpana
2.P.L.Prabakaran ...Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 and 2 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the judgment and
decree passed in O.S.No.108 of 2019 on the file of IV Additional District
Judge, Tiruvallur at Ponneri dated 23.12.2022.
For Appellants : Mr.J.Ram
For 1st Respondent : Mr.K.Prabhakaran
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A.S.No.666 of 2024
******
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.)
With the consent of the parties, the appeal itself is taken up for
hearing.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per
their rank in the suit.
3. The appeal is at the instance of the defendants. Challenge is to the
decree for declaration of title and recovery of possession granted by the trial
Court in O.S.No.108 of 2019.
4. The plaintiff sued for declaration of title in respect of 16 cents of
land in S.No.15/3A2A of Mathur Village. According to the plaintiff, an
extent of 16 cents of land which was declared as surplus under the The
Tamil Nadu Land Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961 was
assigned to one Narasimhan. The said Narasimhan executed a settlement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
deed in favour of the plaintiff (daughter) on 12.09.2017. Claiming that the
1st defendant had encroached upon the suit property and had put up certain
shops and let out the same to the defendants 2 to 5, the plaintiff sought for
declaration of her title and recovery of possession.
5. The defendants resisted the suit contending that the claim of the
plaintiff is not correct. The plaintiff is not entitled to S.No.15/3A2A. The
settlement deed was denied. The claim that the land was assigned to the
plaintiff's father was also denied. It was claimed that the suit properties
belonged to Adi Dravida people and the land was allotted to one
Mahalingam on 11.04.1979. It is stated that the said Mahalingam died on
23.02.2000 leaving behind his legal representatives. On 11.08.2011, the
heirs of Mahalingam sold an extend of 4 cents in S.No.15/3A1 to one
Madhavi wife of Mutyalal Rao. The said Madhavi sold the said extent of 4
cents to the 1st defendant on 24.06.2013 and therefore the 1st defendant is
entitled to the said 4 cents of land in S.No.15/3A1. It is also claimed that
the defendant has filed a suit for permanent injunction against the plaintiff's
father and the plaintiff in O.S.No.7 of 2018 in respect of the land purchased
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
by him and the same is pending.
6. On the above contentions, the trial Court framed the following
issues:
1) Whether the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the
suit property?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of
declaration and for recovery of possession?
3) Whether the 1st defendant is the absolute owner of
the suit property by virtue of a registered Sale Deed dated
24.06.2013?
4) To what relief if any the plaintiff is entitled to?
7. At trial, the plaintiff was examined as PW1 and one Lokeshwari,
Firka Surveyor was examined as PW2. Exs.A1 to A12 were marked on the
side of the plaintiff. The 1st defendant was examined as DW1 and one
Balamurugan was examined as DW2. Exs.B1 to B12 were marked on the
side of the defendants.
8. The learned trial Judge upon consideration of the evidence on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
record, particularly, the evidence of PW2, firka surveyor and the admission
made by the 1st defendant as DW1 in his cross-examination concluded that
the 1st defendant is not claiming any right over the suit property, which is
shown as S.No.15/3A2A of an extent of 16 cents. The 1st defendant is
claiming title to an extent of 4 cents in S.No.15/3A1, which is situate on the
West of the suit property. The trial Court also found that the claim of the
plaintiff that the property was assigned to Narasimhan and Narasimhan
settled it on her is true. On the said conclusion the trial Court decreed the
suit. Aggrieved the defendant is on appeal.
9. We have heard Mr.J.Ram, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and Mr.K.Prabhakaran, learned counsel appearing for the 1st
respondent/ plaintiff.
10. Mr.J.Ram, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/
defendants would vehemently contend that in the guise of executing the
decree obtained for S.No.15/3A2A, the plaintiff is seeking to disturb their
possession of land in S.No.15/3A1. Though the learned counsel would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
concede that the defendants have no claim over S.No.15/3A2A he would
submit that he is actually aggrieved by the attempt of the plaintiff to disturb
their possession of the 4 cents of land in S.No.15/3A1, which according to
the defendants, belongs to the 1st defendant.
11. Mr.K.Prabhakaran, learned counsel appearing for the 1st
respondent/ plaintiff would contend that the defendant has in his oral
evidence conceded the title of the plaintiff to S.No.15/3A2A and therefore
he has no cause for filing the appeal. The learned counsel would also draw
our attention to the evidence of PW2 firka surveyor as well as the evidence
of DW1, the 1st defendant himself to contend that in fact the defendant did
not claim any right over the land in S.No.15/3A2A.
12. We have considered the rival submissions.
13. On the contention of the learned counsel on either side, the only
point that arises for determination is:-
Whether the defendant had claimed any right over the land in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.No.15/3A2A, which is shown as suit property?
14. The suit property has been described as follows in the plaint:-
Schedule
The Vacant land with an extent of 16 Cents which is
about 6976 Sq.ft., in S.A.No.15/3A2A at Mathur Village,
Madhavaram Taluk, Tiruvallure District measuring East to
West 28.4 Metre on both sides and North to South 23 Metre on
both sides and bounded on the
North by – 200 Feet Road ;
South by – S.No.15/3B1;
East by – S.No.15/3A2B and
West by – property in S.No.15/3A1.
15. A perusal of the description of the property along with the
boundaries would show that the plaintiff's claim is restricted to an extent of
16 cents in S.No.15/3A2A, which is bounded on the North by 200 Feet
Road; South by S.No.15/3B1; East by S.No.15/3A2B and West by the
property in S.No.15/3A1. The firka surveyor, who was examined as PW2,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
has specifically deposed that the land in S.No.15/3A1 is situate on the West
of the suit property and patta for that land stands in the name of one
Subashini. As far as the land in S.No.15/3A2A, the said land has been
assigned to Narasimhan and Narasimhan had in turn settled it on the
plaintiff. The defendant is his oral evidence has specifically admitted that
he does not have any claim over S.No.15/3A2A. The relevant portion of his
evidence in cross-examination reads as follows:-
,e;j tHf;F brhj;ij ehd; vd;Dila
brhj;J vd;W brhy;fpnwd; vd;why; rupjhd;/
tHf;F brhj;jpd; ru;nt bjupa[kh vd;why; ru;nt
vz;/15-3V1/ mjdhy; ru;nt vz;/15-3V2V fPH;
cs;s 16 rbd;oy; vdf;F ve;jtpj ghj;aija[k;
,y;iy vd;why; ,y;iy/ tHf;F brhj;jpy;
jhf;fy; bra;ag;gl;Ls;s Mtz';fis ehd;
ghu;j;Js;nsdh vd;why; ,y;iy/ mJ Fwpj;J
vdf;F bjupahJ/ ru;nt vz;/15-3V2V brhj;jpy;
cs;s 16 brd;l; epyj;ij eurpk;kd; vd;gtu;
jdJ kfshfpa fy;gdhtpw;F (thjpf;F)
brl;oy;bkd;l; Vw;gLj;jpa[s;shu; vd;gJ Fwpj;J
bjupa[kh vd;why; th/rh/1 Mtzj;jpy; ru;nt
vz;/15-3V2V Fwpj;J vdf;F Ml;nrgid ,y;iy
Mdhy; ru;nt vz;/15-3V1 vdf;F ghj;jpag;gl;l
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
brhj;J/
16. Though the defendant would claim in further cross-examination
that patta in S.No.15/3A1 also stands in the name of Narasimhan, the
evidence of firka surveyor is otherwise. The FMB has been produced and
the same is marked as Ex.A12. A perusal of Ex.A12 shows that the land in
S.No.15/3A1 is situate on the West of the suit property and the suit property
has been given S.No.15/3A2A. We see no foundation for the apprehension
of the appellants that the plaintiff is attempting to take possession of the
land in S.No.15/3A1 in the guise of executing the present decree. The
decree in this suit is for recovery of possession of 16 cents of land in
S.No.15/3A2A and nothing more. Once the defendant admits that he does
not have a claim over the land in S.No.15/3A2A, we do not see any
grievance to the defendant as against the decree that has been granted.
17. We find that the very appeal is unnecessary. Therefore, the appeal
fails and it is accordingly dismissed. We make it clear that the executing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Court will ensure that the plaintiff is put in possession of the suit property
and nothing more. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(R.S.M., J.) (C.K., J.)
19.11.2024
dsa
Index : No
Neutral Citation : No
Speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
The IV Additional District Judge,
Tiruvallur at Ponneri.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.
and
C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
dsa
19.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
