Madras High Court
Sree Veera Bhagavan Swamy Kovil vs Annakodi on 28 August, 2025
S.A.(MD) No.362 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
S.A.(MD) No.362 of 2025
Sree Veera Bhagavan Swamy Kovil,
Aranthangi, Thiruppani Sangham,
Rep. by its President R.Balakumar,
S/o.Ramaiah Pillai,
No.95/a, L.N.Puram 3rd Street,
Aranthangi Town and Taluk,
Pudukkottai District.
Cause title is accepted vide court order
dated 26.6.25 made in CMP(MD)No.
9552/2025)
... Appellant/Appellant /2nd Defendant
Vs.
1. Annakodi
W/o.Kalimuthu,
Ookkukudi Village,
Sathiyakudi Post,
Avudaiyarkovil Taluk,
Pudukkottai District. ... 1st Respondent / 1st Respondent/ Plaintiff
2. Sathaiah Pillai
S/o.Vaithilingam,
No.12/34, Lakshmi Narasimmapuram 5th Street,
Aranthangi Town and Taluk,
Pudukkottai District - 614 616.
... 2nd Respondent/2nd Respondent /
1st Defendant
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
S.A.(MD) No.362 of 2025
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure
Code, to set aside the Impugned Judgment and Decree passed by the
Principal District and Sessions Court Pudukkottai dated 27.01.2023
made in AS No.29 of 2019 by which confirming the Judgment and
Decree made in OS No.87 of 2018 dated 08.08.2019 on the file of the
Sub Court Aranthangi and allow the Second Appeal and thus render
justice.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Baalasundaram, Senior Counsel,
for M/s.KBS Law Associates
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. This Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent
judgments of the courts below decreeing O.S. No. 87 of 2018 on the
file of the Subordinate Judge, Aranthangi, in favour of the
respondent/plaintiff for permanent injunction, which decree was
confirmed in A.S. No. 29 of 2019 by the Principal District Judge,
Pudukkottai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred
to as per their ranks before the trial Court.
4. The plaintiff’s case is that the suit property in Survey No.
201/4 of Lakshmi Narasimhapuram Village, measuring 7227 square
feet, originally belonged to Alagammal, wife of Ethiraj, who was in
possession and held patta. After her death, the property devolved upon
her sister’s daughter Vallikannu, who sold it to Vimala under Ex.A2 and
Ex.A3, registered sale deeds dated 12.10.1995 and 29.10.1999. Vimala
subsequently conveyed the property to the plaintiff under Ex.A1, a
registered sale deed dated 26.02.2007. The plaintiff produced patta
entries, Ex.A8 to Ex.A12 adangal extracts, and Ex.A13 kist receipt
dated 28.02.2007 in Alagammal’s name, to show title traced through
Alagammal and possession thereafter.
5. The defence set up was that the land formed part of 63
cents dedicated to Sri Veera Bhagavan Swamy Temple under Ex.B1, a
deed of gift dated 01.06.1952, and that subsequent alienations by
Vallikannu and Vimala were invalid. Reliance was also placed on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
Ex.B5, an order of the Revenue Divisional Officer dated 05.06.2008
cancelling the plaintiff’s patta and mutating it in the name of the
temple, followed by Ex.B6 patta issued in the temple’s favour, and
Ex.B2, a notice of 1965 under the Madras Estates Abolition Act
showing existence of temples in the inam village.
6. The trial court decreed the suit on 08.08.2019, holding
that Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 formed a valid chain of registered title deeds,
corroborated by patta, adangal and kist receipts, and proved ownership
and possession. Ex.B1 was rejected as unregistered, produced belatedly,
not proved to cover the suit survey number, and unsupported by any
subsequent revenue record.
7. The plea that the suit for bare injunction was not
maintainable was rejected on the ground that the plaintiff had proved
possession backed by title deeds, whereas the defendants had failed to
show any semblance of right.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
8. The first appellate court re-appraised the matter and
confirmed the decree on 27.01.2023. It reiterated that Ex.A1 to Ex.A3
and revenue entries proved title and possession. On Ex.B1, it gave
reasons, namely absence of proper custody, inapplicability of Section
90 Evidence Act, and its irrelevance in earlier revenue proceedings. On
Ex.B5, it noted that the order was ex parte and later set aside by the
District Revenue Officer, thereby restoring patta to the plaintiff and
rendering Ex.B6 patta ineffective.
9. This Court has considered whether the concurrent findings
disclose any legal error warranting interference under Section 100 CPC.
The plaintiff’s case rests on Ex.A1 to Ex.A3, registered conveyances
forming a continuous chain of title, supported by Ex.A8 to Ex.A12
adangal extracts and Ex.A13 kist receipt in the name of Alagammal,
showing that title was traced back through Alagammal as pattadar. The
plea that a bare injunction suit was not maintainable was properly
addressed by the appellate court in light of Anathula Sudhakar. Since
Ex.B1 was disbelieved and no genuine cloud on title was shown, there
was no necessity for the plaintiff to seek a declaratory relief. The
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
plaintiff’s possession, in the case of vacant land, follows her
established title. The concurrent findings that the plaintiff was in lawful
possession and that the defendants had not shown any semblance of
right over the suit property are well founded on law and evidence.
10. In sum, each ground raised by the appellant—validity of
Ex.A2 and Ex.A3, effect of Ex.B5 and Ex.B6, evidentiary value of
Ex.B1 and Ex.B2, Section 90 presumption, maintainability of suit, and
rejection of additional documents—has been correctly addressed by the
courts below on settled legal principles. No perversity or
misapplication of law is shown. No substantial question of law arises.
11. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the
admission stage. The judgment and decree dated 08.08.2019 in O.S.
No. 87 of 2018 of the Subordinate Judge, Aranthangi, and the judgment
and decree dated 27.01.2023 in A.S. No. 29 of 2019 of the Principal
District Judge, Pudukkottai, are confirmed. No order as to costs.
Speaking : Yes / No 28.08.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
LS
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
Copy to:
1.The Principal District and Sessions Court
Pudukkottai
2.The Sub Court
Aranthangi.
3.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.
LS
28.08.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/08/2025 04:40:03 pm )
