Madras High Court
Maheswari vs Renganayaki on 29 August, 2025
S.A.(MD) No.389 of 2025
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29.08.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
S.A.(MD) No.389 of 2025
and
CMP(MD)No.13253 of 2025
1. Maheswari
W/o.Marichamy, No.105, Sibbaiah Oorani
North Street, Chinnakamanpatti Village,
Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District.
2. Saravanakumar
S/o.Jayaseelan, No.105/2, Sibbaiah Oorani
North Street, Chinnakamanpatti Village,
Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District.
... Appellants / Respondents 1 & 2/
Defendants 1 & 2
Vs.
1. Renganayaki
W/o.Venkatasamy Naicker,
2/23, Middle Street,
Chinnakamanpatti Village,
Sattur Taluk, Virudhunagar District.
...1st Respondent/Appellant/Plaintiff
2. Rajeswari
W/o.Late.Veerachamy,
No.1/656-1, Padanthal Village,
Sattur Taluk,
Virudhunagar District.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:55 pm )
S.A.(MD) No.389 of 2025
3. The Sub-Registrar
Sub-Registrar Office,
Main Road, Sattur,
Virudhunagar District.
... Respondents 2&3/Defendants 2&3
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure
Code to set aside the Judgment and decree dated 12.09.2024 in A.S.No.
30 of 2021 on the file of Sub Court Sattur by reversing the judgment
and decree dated 26.10.2018 in O.S.No.8 of 2014 on the file of District
Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court No.1, Sattur and pass such
further orders and thus render justice.
PRAYER in CMP:
To stay the operation of the Judgment and decree dated
12.09.2024 in A.S.No.30 of 2021 on the file of Sub Court, Sattur, by
reversing the judgment and decree dated 26.10.2018 in O.S.No.8 of
2014 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court No.1
Sattur, pending disposal of the above second appeal and pass such
further or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit and
proper and render justice.
For Appellants : Mr.P.Saravanan, Advocate
for Mr.A.Sivaji, Advocate
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:55 pm )
S.A.(MD) No.389 of 2025
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and
decree dated 12.09.2024 in A.S. No.30 of 2021 on the file of the
Subordinate Judge, Sattur, which reversed the judgment and decree
dated 26.10.2018 passed in O.S. No.8 of 2014 by the District Munsif-
cum-Judicial Magistrate, Sattur.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties would be referred
to as per their ranks before the trial Court.
4. The plaintiff instituted the suit seeking a declaration of
title, a decree of permanent injunction and alternatively for recovery of
possession and to declare settlement deed dated 27.12.2010 as well as
the simple mortgage deed dated 08.11.2013 as null and void and
consequential mandatory injunction.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:55 pm )
5. The plaintiff places reliance on Ex.A2, a sale deed dated
29.09.1986 executed by Seeniammal along with her daughter,
Avudaithai, in his favour. The defendants, however, contend that upon
the demise of Seeniammal, the property devolved upon their mother,
Avudaiammal, and thereafter, on her death, devolved upon them as her
heirs. They dispute the very execution of Ex.A2, asserting that their
mother never signed as ‘Avudaithai.’ In support of this contention, they
rely upon Ex.B3, a settlement deed executed by Avudaiammal in favour
of her husband, Jeyaseelan (the father of defendants 1 and 2), wherein
she had signed only as ‘Avudaiammal.’ On this basis, the defendants
allege that Ex.A2 is a forged and impersonated document.
6. While examining Ex.A2, the trial court observed that
Jeyaseelan, the husband of Avudaiammal, had attested the document as
a witness, but was not examined. It further noted that the daughter of
Seeniammal had been unnecessarily included in sale deed dated
29.09.1986. Even so, both the trial court and the first appellate court,
upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, concurrently
held that the plaintiff had established his title to the suit property and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:55 pm )
that the defendants had brought about subsequent documents only after
Ex.A2. Hence, no reason arises to doubt the plaintiff’s title.
7. The trial court, though holding that the plaintiff had proved
her title, dismissed the suit on the ground that she had failed to adduce
evidence of possession, observing that the proper remedy was one for
recovery of possession rather than an injunction.
8. The first appellate court, applying the settled principle that
possession of a vacant site follows title, held that the plaintiff, as the
title holder, must be deemed to be in lawful possession, and accordingly
decreed the suit.
9. It is evident that the suit property is vacant land. The
defendants, on the strength of a release deed executed by the first
defendant in favour of the second defendant, obtained patta, created a
mortgage, and secured mutation of revenue records in their names.
However, all these transactions are subsequent to Ex.A2 and hence
legally untenable. Though the revenue records stand in the defendants’
names, the plaintiff has established title under Ex.A2. Therefore, as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:55 pm )
rightly held by the appellate court, possession must follow title.
10. In view of the foregoing, this Court finds no reason to
interfere with the findings of the appellate court. No substantial
question of law arises for consideration under Section 100 CPC.
Accordingly, the Second Appeal stands dismissed at the admission
stage. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
Speaking : Yes / No 29.08.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
LS
Copy to:
1.The Sub Court .
Sattur
2.The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate No.1,
Sattur
3.The Section Officer
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:55 pm )
DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.
LS
29.08.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 29/08/2025 04:31:55 pm )
