Arumugam vs Kalimuthu
2024 Latest Caselaw 17460 Mad

Madras High Court

Arumugam vs Kalimuthu on 3 September, 2024

Author: T.V.Thamilselvi

Bench: T.V.Thamilselvi

                                                                                     S.A.No.515 of 2024

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                  Dated :03.09.2024

                                                         CORAM:

                                   THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

                                                S.A.No.515 of 2024
                                                       and
                                               CMP.No.16525 of 2024



                  1. Arumugam
                  2. Jeeva                                                       .. Appellants

                                                           Vs.

                  Kalimuthu                                               .. Respondent


                  PRAYER : Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
                  Procedure, against the Judgment and Decree dated 30.11.2023, A.S.No.18 of
                  2022 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge at Virudhachalam
                  confirming the judgment and decree on the Court of I-Additional District
                  Munsiff at Virudhachalam made in O.S.No.202 of 2013, dated 21.10.2021.


                                        For Appellants     : Mr.G.Anabayachozhan
                                        For Respondent     : Mr.J.Antony Jesus




                                                  JUDGMENT

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The appellants have filed this Second Appeal against the Judgment and

Decree of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Virudhachalam, dated

30.11.2023 in A.S.No.18 of 2022, confirming the judgment and decree of the

learned I Additional District Munsif, Virudhachalam, dated 21.10.2021 in

O.S.No.202 of 2013.

2. Heard, Mr.G.Anabayachozhan, learned counsel for the appellants

and Mr.J.Antony Jesus, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and

perused the materials available on record.

3. Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the

appellants/defendants 5 and 7 have preferred this appeal to declare the

existence of the B-Schedule channel and to restore the same, which was

destroyed by the defendants.

4. Before the Courts below, the plaintiff successfully established their

claim. With the assistance of the Commissioner, the physical features of the

property were also established. Additionally, the Village Administrative

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Officer (VAO) was examined and testified that, according to the revenue

records, there was a channel and that it should extend to Survey No. 39.

However, on the ground, the said channel was not in existence. Therefore,

based on the revenue records, it was proven that the channel once existed but

was destroyed, as established by the plaintiff.

5. As a result, the defendants are liable to restore the channel.

6. Accordingly, this Second appeal is dismissed as it lacks merit.

Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.

7. The defendants are directed to restore the channel within a period of

three months from the date of this order.

03.09.2024

rri Index : Yes/No Speaking Order: Yes/No Nutral citation: Yes/No

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

rri

To

The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Madras.

and

03.09.2024

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis