Madras High Court
Kailasam Ammal (Died) vs A.K.C.Balasubramanian (Died) on 29 January, 2025
Author: V.Sivagnanam
Bench: V.Sivagnanam
S.A.No.2127 of 2002
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on 08.01.2025
Pronounced on 29.01.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
S.A.No.2127 of 2002
1.Kailasam Ammal (died)
2.Shanmugham
3.Dhanam
4.Krishnaveni
5.Bhuvaneswari
6.Minor Saravanan
(Appellants 3 to 6 are suo motue impleaded as
Legal Heirs of the deceased first appellant
vide court order dated 27.09.2021)
... Appellants
-vs-
1.A.K.C.Balasubramanian (died)
2.Veerappa Chettiar (died)
3.Veerapandi
4.V.Balasubramanian (died)
5.Kailasam
6.Shanmugam
(R5 & R6 are suo motu impleaded as Legal Heirs of
the deceased first respondent vide
court order dated 27.09.2021)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/23
S.A.No.2127 of 2002
7.Seethaiammal
8.Ravi
9.Padma
10.Shanthi
(R7 to R10 are suo motu impleaded as Legal Heirs of
the deceased 2nd respondent vide
court order dated 27.09.2021)
11.Annakodi
12.Balasubramani
(R11 & R12 are suo motu impleaded as Legal Heirs of
the deceased 4th respondent vide
court order dated 27.09.2021)
..Respondents
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 Code of Civil
Procedure against the Judgment and Decree made in A.S.No.537 of 1999
dated 25.01.2002 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Trichy
reversing the Judgment and Decree made in O.S.No.5 of 1994 dated
27.02.1998 on the file of the District Munsif, Musiri.
For Appellants ... Mr.K.Govindarajan
For Respondents ... No appearance
JUDGMENT
The Second Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and
Decree passed in A.S.No.537 of 1999 dated 25.01.2002 on the file of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Principal Subordinate Judge, Trichy reversing the Judgment and Decree
passed in O.S.No.5 of 1994 dated 27.02.1998 on the file of the District
Munsif, Musiri.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per
their ranking in the Trial Court.
3.The plaintiffs in O.S.No.5 of 1994 on the file of the District
Munsif, Musiri are the appellants herein.
4.The case of the plaintiffs is that the portion marked as BCEF in
plaint plan (marked as Ex P-1) is suit 'B' schedule property. The portion
marked as EFGH in plaint plan A-1 is suit 'A' schedule property.
Originally, ABEFCD portion in the plaint belonged to Vaiyapuri
Chettiar. The wife of Vaiyapuri Chettiar inherited the property and sold
suit 'B' schedule property to one Mookan Chettiar through Ex.A3 dated
06.06.1918. Thereafter, the wife of said Mookan Chettiar sold the said
property to one Rathinammal through Ex.A4 dated 22.06.1955.
Thereafter, the said Rathinammal sold the said property to 1st plaintiff
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
through Ex.A5 dated 11.05.1968. When the said property was under the
possession and enjoyment of the 1st plaintiff, the defendants asked the 1st
plaintiff to sell said property to them, however, she refused. Enraged by
this, the defendants highhandedly encroached and put up construction in
the 'B' schedule property. The construction put up by the defendants is
shown as 'C' schedule in the plaint. The 'A' schedule property was bought
by the 2nd plaintiff, who is none else than the son of the 1st plaintiff from
one Pichai Chettiar S/o Rathinammal through Ex.A6 dated 02.09.1993.
As the defendants have created documents and claimed that the property
purchased by the 1st plaintiff is 'A' schedule and not 'B' schedule and
further they claimed ownership over 'B' schedule through Ex.B1, the suit
was constrained to be filed to declare that the 1st plaintiff is the sole,
absolute and exclusive owner of the suit 'B' Schedule property and to
deliver possession of the 'B' schedule property to the first plaintiff and to
grant a mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiffs directing the
defendants to remove the construction in 'C' schedule property.
5.The defendants filed a written statement and contested suit. It is
denied that the subject matter of conveyance under 22.06.1955 sale deed
was a schedule property. It is false to state that Rathinam Ammal vendee
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
under sale deed was put into possession of 'B' schedule property and in
pursuance of said sale deed, she has been in enjoyment of 'B' schedule
property openly, peacefully, continuously and uninterruptedly for more
than that the statutory period of limitation and thus, she had perfected
title by adverse possession also in respect of 'B' schedule property. As
mentioned supra, the subject matter of conveyance under sale deed dated
22-6-1955 was only a schedule property and Lakshmi Ammal was in
enjoyment of A schedule property only. The averments in para 11 of the
plaint are totally false. The first plaintiff purchased under sale deed
dated 11-5-1968 from prior owner Rathinam Ammal only 'A' schedule
property and since 'A' schedule property was situated adjacent west of
Akkandi Chettiar manai, it has been rightly described in said sale deed as
west of Akkandi Chettiar manai. The first plaintiff has purchased under
sale deed only 'A' schedule property and she has been in possession and
enjoyment of 'A' schedule property only and she has perfected title to A
schedule property only by adverse possession also. The averments to the
contra in para 11 of plaint are totally false. Even in the partition deed
dated 09-07-1993, it is held that in 2nd defendant's family owner of 'A'
schedule property is derived to Arumugham Chettiar H/o Kailasam
Ammal. The averments in para 12 of plaint are not fully correct. It is true
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
that the managers of Chatram purchased ABCD property under sale deed
dated 28-7-1993 from Beerala Ammal and 2 others. By mistake in that
sale deed western boundary was wrongly described as Arumugham
Chettiar manai. Taking advantage of that wrong description, the plaintiff
wants to claim title to schedule property in 1st plaintiff's family. The first
plaintiff has forgotten the fact that in her sale deed dated 11-5-1968
western boundary was rightly described as Akkandy Chettiar manai. The
averments in para 13 of plaint are totally false. It is false to state that
Lakshmi Ammal has been under the care and protection of Rathinam
Ammal since she was residing at Thatiengarpettai. It is equally false to
state that after the demise of Lakshmi Ammal, Rathinam Ammal has
taken possession of 'A' schedule property for her share from Akkandy
Chettiar and others and she has been in enjoyment of 'A' schedule
property for many years more than the statutory period of limitation.
6.It is further stated that the averments in para 14 of plaint are
totally false. Pichal Chettiar never inherited 'A' schedule property from
her mother. It is equally false to state that on behalf of Pichai Chettiar,
the first plaintiff's husband has been enjoying the 'A' schedule property.
Pichai Chettiar has no title to 'A' schedule property. Pichal Chettiar has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
no right and competency to sell 'A' schedule property to the 2nd plaintiff
under sale deed dated 02-09-1993. When Pichal Chettiar's mother
Rathinagiri Ammal sold 'A' schedule property under sale deed
11.05.1960 to Kailasam Ammal, the said Pitchai Chettiar knowing fully
well the contents of said sale deed, has attested the sale deed. In that sale
deed, it has been clearly stated that said property is situated adjacent west
of Akkandy Chettiar manai. Hence, A schedule property was already sold
by his mother to Kailasam under sale deed dated 11-05-1968. Hence, the
said Pichat Chettiar has no right to convey again same A schedule
property to the 2nd plaintiff under sale deed dated 02-09-1993. After
knowing the mistaken boundary recitals in sale deed dated 23-07-1993 in
favour of one Balasubramaniam and another trustee Pichal Chettiar, he
has created the sale deed in favour of the 2nd plaintiff under sale deed
dated 02-09-1993, as if he has got right to convey the A schedule
property again. The sale deed dated 02.09.1993 in favour of the 2nd
plaintiff is a void document. The said sale deed cannot confer any title
much less valid title in favour of the 2nd plaintiff in respect of A schedule
property. The 2nd plaintiff and his vendor have never been in enjoyment
of A schodule property at any point of time much less for more than the
statutory period of limitation and the plaintiff has no prescribed title to A
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
schedule property by adverse possession also. The B schedule property
was purchased by another Balasubramaniam and one Veerappa Chettiar
as trustees of Chatram under sale deed dated 01-12-1993 from
Sivamanikkam for Rs.3,500/ and trustees of said Chatram were put into
possession of B schedule property in pursuance of said sale deed. The
said vendor Sivamanikkan Chettiar in turn purchased said B schedule
property under sale deed dated 03.04.1959 from prior owner
Kamalathammal. Thus, another Balasubramaniyam and his vendors have
been in possession and enjoyment of B schedule property openly,
continuously, peacefully and uninterruptedly for more than several
statutory periods and they have in any event prescribed title to B
schedule property by adverse possession also.
7.On the basis of the above said pleas set out by the respective
parties, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court for
consideration:
1.jhth gp gl;bay; nrhf;fpy; 1k thjpf;F
cupik cs;sjh?
2. jhth v gl;bay; nrhj;jpy; 2k; thjpf;F
cupik cs;sjh?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3. vjpu;thjpfs; rp gl;bay; fl;blj;ij
fl;bAs;sduh?
4. jhth gp gl;bay; nrhj;ij nghWj;J 1k;
thjpf;F tpsk;Gif kw;Wk; RthjPd gupfhuq;fs;
fpilf;fj; jf;fjh?
5. jhth gp gl;bay; nrhj;ijg; nghWj;J 1k;
thjpf;F vjph;fhy tUkhdk; ngw jFjp cilatuh?
6. jhth rp gl;bay; nrhj;ijg; nghWj;J 1k;
thjpf;F nraYWj;Jf; fl;lis gupfhuk; fpilf;fj;
jf;fjh?
7. fhth V gl;bay; nrhj;ij nghWj;J 2k;
thjpf;F tpsk;Gif kw;Wk;; epiyahd cWj;Jf;
fl;lis gupfhuq;fs; fpilf;fj; jf;fjh?
8. mtrpakhd jug;gpdiu Nru;f;fhjjhy; ,e;j
tof;F Fiw cilajh?
9. thjpf;F fpilf;ff; $ba gupfhuq;fs; vd;d?
8. Before the Trial Court, on the side of the plaintiffs, two
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
witnesses have been examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and 7 documents
have been marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A7. On the side of the defendants, the
third defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and examined another
witnesses as D.W2 and D.W.3 and marked 5 documents as Ex.B1 to
Ex.B5.
9. The Trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary
evidence, decreed the suit as prayed for and dismissed the suit with
regard to mesne profits and directed the defendants 3 and 4 to remove the
construction upon C schedule property within a period of three months.
Aggrieved by this, the defendants filed the appeal in A.S.No.537 of 1999
on the file of the Subordinate Court, Trichy. The First Appellate Court,
by its Judgment dated 25.01.2002 allowed the appeal and set aside the
judgment and decree of the Trial Court. Aggrieved by this, the plaintiffs
filed the present second appeal.
10. While admitting the second appeal, this Court has formulated
the following substantial questions of law:-
“Whether the judgments and decrees of the Courts
below are sustainable in law as they have not considered
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the entire evidence to decide the issue and the relevant
provisions of law applicable to the facts of the case?.”
11. The learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs submitted that
the finding of the First Appellate Court is erroneous and unsustainable
and it failed to give valid reason for reversing the judgement of the Trial
Court and ignored the boundaries mentioned in the documents Exs.A3,
A4 and A5 which are related to B schedule property. The First Appellate
Court overlooked the fact that Mookan Chettiar and Akkandi Chettiar are
pangalies and only due to the relationship Akkandi Chettiar was shown
as the owner of the eastern site in Ex.A5 sale deed. The First Appellate
Court failed to consider the fact that in the sale deed in favour of the
defendants 3 and 4 dated 28.07.1993 which was marked as
Ex.A7 /Ex.B1, the eastern boundary was shown as appellants property
which will clearly establish that the appellant has got title in respect of B
schedule property. The First Appellate Court failed to consider the fact
that in the document Ex.A3 and A4, eastern boundary was shown as the
property belonging to Mookan Chettiar family.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
12. The learned counsel further submitted that even in Ex.B1, it is
mentioned that the eastern boundary in property belongs to Arumugam
Chettiar. DW1 also admitted in his evidence that Arumugam Chettiar
referred to in Ex.B1 is none else than the husband of 1st plaintiff. The
defendant has come up with faint explanation that their Eastern boundary
is mistakenly mentioned belong to 1st plaintiff. It is not acceptable for the
reason that DW1 has stated that he did not choose to rectify the error in
mentioning the boundary in Ex.A1 in spite of the fact that his vendor
Seevalammal is alive. If the misdescription of boundary is genuine, he
would have taken steps to rectify the same approaching his vendor. His
inaction is an ample proof that his claim of mistaken reference to Eastern
boundary is false and an afterthought. He further submitted that the
defendant has created Ex.B3 taking advantage of the fact that in Ex.A5
eastern boundary is referred to as land belong to Akkandi Chettiar. Since
the predecessor of the 1st plaintiff namely, Mookan Chettiar and Akkandi
Chettiar happened to be Pangaligals their names had been used
interchangeably while referring to properties on the Eastern side of the
plaintiffs' property. The above explanation offered by plaintiff merit
acceptance. Further, one of the witnesses examined as DW2 is none
other than grandson of Akkandi Chettiar. He has stated that extent of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Arumugam Chettiar's (Husband of first plaintiff and the father of the
second plaintiff) property is 24 feet on East West and he has been
enjoying the same for more than thirty years. More importantly, DW2 has
stated that his property is on the East of Arumugam Chettiar's property
and Sivamanickam Chettiar's property is on West of 24 feet enjoyed by
Arumugam Chettiar. The vendor of third defendant namely,
Sivamanickam examined as DW3 and he has stated that the property on
the east of his property belong to KailasamAmmal the 1st plaintiff and
further east of the 1st plaintiff's property alone belong to Akkandi
Chettiar. From the evidence of DW2 and DW3, it is clear that the
property purchased by the defendant from Seerammal and Sivamanickam
through Ex B1 and B3 are one and the same which has been shown as
'ABCD' in plaint plan. It is to be noted that the combined east-west
measurement of both A and B schedule as per A-5 and A-6 is 23 feet.
Exactly enjoyment of this extent by the plaintiff has been testified by
defendant side witness DW2. It is not uncommon in villages to identify a
family through a common eldest member/Ancestor. Hence, since both
Mookan Chettiar and Akkandi Chettiar were pangalis and Akkandi
chettiar happened to be an elder member, his name had been mentioned
in Ex.A5. When the factum of enjoyment of 24 feet on East West
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
between the land of Akkandi Chettiar GLIH and ABCD in plaint plan
has been established through the evidence of DW2, the First Appellate
Court ought to have confirmed the judgment of Trial Court. He further
submitted that the First Appellate Court instead of appreciating both
documentary and oral evidence in entirety chosen to consider Exs.A5 and
A6 alone and disregarding other documents. It is pertinent to note that
though five witnesses have been examined in this case, none of the
testimonies of witnesses were discussed by the First Appellant Court. It
is settled principle that the First Appellate Court shall give reasons for
not accepting the findings recorded by the Trial Court. Besides that the
First Appellate Court is duty bound to answer all issues framed by the
Trial Courts independently while revering the judgment. The finding of
the First Appellate Court that the boundaries mentioned in Ex.A5 and A6
are one and the same for reaching the conclusion that the properties
purchased by the plaintiff 1 and 2 are 'A' schedule alone is factually
erroneous. The First Appellate Court has failed to see that the eastern and
western boundaries mentioned in the said two documents are different.
The learned counsel further submitted that the consistent stand of the
defendant is that they have no claim over suit 'A' schedule and the
dispute is only with regard to 'B' schedule. This stand of the defendant is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
also amplified in their evidence. The First Appellate Court ought to have
noted that the possession and enjoyment of both A and B schedule
properties by the plaintiffs have been established. Hence, the learned
counsel pleaded to allow the second appeal.
13. Though notice has been served on the respondents and their
name is also printed in the cause list, they have not appeared either in
person or through his counsel. Hence, this Court appointed
Mr.Narmadhan, Advocate, as Amicus curiae to assist the Court. Under
these circumstances, this Court after hearing the learned counsel for the
appellants, decided the second appeal.
14. I have considered the matter in the light of the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the appellants and perused the materials
available on records carefully.
15. A perusal of the records, it is noticed that the portion marked
as BCEF in the plaint plan ( marked Ex.A1) is the suit B schedule
property. The portion marked as EFGH in the plaint plan A1 is the suit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
A schedule property.
16. Further, on perusal of the records, the fact reveals that
Kamatchiammal W/o Vaiyapuri Chettiar sold a portion of the property to
an extent of 15.28 cents in S.No.35 to Lakshmiammal W/o Mookan
Chettiar, on 06.06.1918, which is evidenced from Ex.A3 sale deed dated
06.06.1918. The description of property is mentioned as follows:-
jpUr;rpupb jhj;ijaq;fhu;Ngl;il rg;b>
jhj;ijaq;fhu;Ngl;il fpuhkj;jpy; nad; GU\dhy;
fpilj;J ehd; mDgtpj;J tUk; nad; kid
epyj;Jf;F Nkw;F> fk;guha nrl;bahu; nghJ
rj;jpuj;jpw;Fk; tlf;F> vq;fs; kid 'epyj;jpw;Fk;
fpof;F> gps;isahu; Nfhtpy; fpoNky; tPjpf;Fk;
njw;F> ,jw;F kj;jpapy; fpoNky; fhy 14-1/2
njd;tly; fhyb tlGwk; fpoNky; Rtu; cs;gl
28-1/2 ,e;j epyKk;> fPoG
; wKk;> Nky;GwKk; ,Uf;Fk;
njd;tly; Rtu;fs; ,uz;bYk; xt;nthd;wpYk; Ngu;
ghjp ghj;jpaKk; ,Jfs; KjyhdJk; fpuaj;jpw;F
rk;ge;jg;gl;lJ" ,jw;F A+dpad; Nlhu; nek;gu; 4"
17. Thereafter, Lakshmiammal sold the same property to
Rathinamammal on 22.06.1955 by way of a registered sale deed, which
is evidenced as Ex.A4. The description of property is as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
jpUr;rp bupb jhj;ijaq;fhu;Ngl;il rg;b> Krpwp
jhY}f;fh \ jhj;ijaq;fhu;Ngl;il fpuhkk ej;jjpy;
3tJ thh;L nra;j; njUtpy; 6.6.1918y; fhyQ;nrd;w
vd; GU\d; fpuak; ngw;W ehd; mDgtpj;J tUk;
fhyp kidf;F rf;F ge;jp tpguk; vd; kidf;F
Nkw;F fk;guha nrl;bahu; \ nghJ rj;jpuj;jpw;Fk;
tlf;F> fhkhak;khs; kidf;Fk; fpof;F gps;isahu;
Nfhtpy; fpoNky; tPjpf;Fk; njw;F> ,jd; kj;jpapy;
Nky;Gwk; fPoG
; wk; nghJ Rtu;fs; cs;gl fpoNky;
fhyb 14-1/2 tlGwk; njd;Gwk; G+uh RtUs;gl
njd;tly; fhyb 28-1/2 ,e;j mbAs;s fhypkid
jhd; fpuaj;Jf;F rk;ke;jg;gl;lJ.”
18. Thereafter, the said Rathinammal sold the same property to
Kailasamammal, the plaintiff's wife, on 11.05.1968 by way of a
registered sale deed which is evidenced by Ex.A5. The description of
property is as follows:-
jpUr;rpupb> jhj;ijaq;fhu;Ngl;il rg;b Krpwp
jhY}f;fh> jhj;ijaq;fhu;Ngl;il fpuhkj;jpy; ej;jk;
ru;Nt 35/v eP.V. 15.28y; 3tJ thu;L 11 gpshf;fpy;
nra;j; njUtpy; ehd; nrd;w 1955k; tUlk; [_d; kP.22k;
vk; Ngupy; Rakha; fpuak; ngw;W mDgtpj;J tUk;
fhypkidf;Fr; rf;Fge;jp tpgh tP.mf;fhz;b nrl;bahu;
kidf;F Nkw;F> fk;guha nrl;bahu; tifawh nghJ
rj;jpuj;jpw;Fk; tlf;F> fhkhak;khs; kidf;Fk; fpof;F>
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
gps;isahu;Nfhtpy; fpoNky; tPjpf;Fk;
njw;F> ,d;dhq;nfy;iyf;Fs; Nky;Guk; fPoG
; uk; nghJ
Rtu;fs; cs;gl fpoNky; fhyb 14-1/2 tlGwk;
njd;Gwk;G+uh Rtu;fs; ghj;jpak; cs;gl njd;tly;
fhyb 28-1/2 ,e;j msTs;s fhypkid jhd;
fpuaj;jpw;F rk;ke;jg;gl;lJ."
19.According to the plaintiffs, these sale deeds Exs.A3, A4 and A5
pertaining to the plaint B schedule property, which is denied by the
defendants. Further, on perusal of the records, it is noticed that Pitchai
Chettiar S/o Rathinammal sold a portion of the property on 02.09.1993
by way of a registered sale deed, which is evidenced as Ex.A6 sale deed
dated 02.09.1993. The above sale deeds Ex.A3, A4 and A5 are the
relevant to decide the case. Kamatchi Ammal W/o Vaiyapuri Chettiar
sold a portion of the property to the extent of 14½ cents east west and
28½ north south with boundary as mentioned supra, in which, western
boundary is mentioned as the property belong to the Kamatchi Ammal.
While selling the same property by Lakshmi Ammal to Rathinammal on
22.06.1955 by way of a registered sale deed (Ex.A4), the same extent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
mentioned western boundary as though, she had property on the western
side, which is wrong.
20. It is a wrong discussion. Lakshmiammal may not have any
property on western side since she had sold entire property what she had
purchased from Kamatchi Ammal to Rathinammal. Therefore, the
description on the wester side in Ex.A4 sale deed dated 22.06.1955 is
wrong one.
21. Further, on perusal of records, it is noticed that Rathinammal
sold the property purchased by her from Lakshmiammal to Kailasammal
on 11.05.1968 by way of sale deed Ex.A5. In the sale deed,
Rathinammal sold entire property what she had purchased from
Lakshmiammal. Therefore, Rathinammal may not have any property in
that survey number. In such circumstances, the son of Rathinammal i.e.,
Pitchai Chettiar may not have nay property to sell to the second plaintiff
Shanmugam on 02.09.1993 by way of a sale deed (Ex.A6) pertaining to
A schedule property.
22. Further, the plaint allegation that after the death of Lakshmi
Ammal, Rathinammal had taken possession of A schedule property for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
her share from Akkandi Chettiar Vaikara is not supported by any
evidence. Therefore, the plaint allegation in para 13 is not proved by the
plaintiffs. Under these circumstances, the First Appellate Court taking
note of the description of the property in the sale deed dated Ex.A4 dated
11.05.1968 has rightly come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs
purchased A schedule property alone and not B schedule property, which
is discussed by the First Appellate Court in para 10 of its Judgment. The
same is reproduced hereunder:-
10. Mf> th.rh.M5- mjhtJ uj;jpdk; mk;khs;
Kjy; thjpf;F vOjpf;nfhLj;jpUf;Fk; gf;jpuj;jpy;
mf;fhz;b nrl;bahupd; kidf;F Nkw;Nf
vd;Wjhd; ,Uf;fpwJ. cz;ikapNyNa jd;Dila
ghfj;Jf;nfd mf;fhz;b nrl;bahu;
tifawhtplkpUe;J 'm' nrl;by; ,lj;ij uj;jpdk;;
mk;khs; Nfl;L thq;fp
RthjPdnkLj;jpUg;ghNuahdhy; jd;Dila
RthjPdj;jpypUf;Fk; ,lj;Jf;F Nkw;Nf vd;Wjhd;
me;j fpiuag; gj;jpuj;jpy; ,Ue;jpUf;Fk;. Mdhy;
th.rh.M.5-y; mf;fhz;b nrl;bahupd; kidf;F
Nkw;Nf vd;W ,Ug;gNj$l th.rh.M. 5-k; rup ,ju
fpiuag;gj;jpuq;fSk; rup m nrl;by;; rk;ge;jg;gl;l
fpiuag; gj;jpuq;fs;jhndd;gij Gyg;gLj;JfpwJ.
M nrl;by; ,lk; jhd; gpr;ir nrl;bahuplkpUe;J
fpiuak; thq;fpanjd;fpwhu; ,uz;lhtJ thjp. me;j
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
fpuag;gj;jpuk;jhd; th.rh.M.6 epr;rakhf gpr;ir
nrl;bahu; me;j ,lj;ij ,uz;lhtJ thjpf;F
fpiuak; nfhLj;jpUe;jpUf;f ,ayhJ. fhuzk;>
nyl;Rkp mk;khs; fpoNkyhf 14-1/2
fhybfisj;jhd; uj;jpdk; mk;khSf;F fpiuak;
nra;Jf;nfhLj;jpUf;fpwhu;. uj;jpdk; mk;khSk;
fpoNkyhf mNj 14-1/2 fhybfisj;jhd; ifyhrk;
mk;khSf;F mjhtJ Kjy; thjpf;F fpiuak;
nra;Jf;nfhLj;jpUf;fpwhu.; mt;thwpUf;ifapy;
uj;jpdk; mk;khs; ifyhrk; mk;khSf;F fpiuak;
nra;Jf;nfhLj;jJ Nghf uj;jpdk; mk;khspd; kfd;
gpr;ir nrl;bahu; \z;Kfj;Jf;F
mjhtJ ,uz;lhtJ thjpf;F fpiuak;
nra;Jf;nfhLj;j kPjnkJTk; ,lkpUf;f
tha;g;gpy;iy Mf> ,jpypUe;Nj 'M'
n\l;Ay;; ,lj;jpy; thjpfSf;F ghjpaijnaJTk;
fpilahnjd;gJ GupfpwJ. 'M' n\l;A+y; ,lj;ij
nghWj;J gupfhunkijAk; Nfl;f
vjpu;Nky;KiwaPl;lhsu;fshd thjpfSf;F
mUfijnaJTkpy;iy vd;Nw KbTWfpNwd;.
23. In view of the above, the plaintiffs failed to prove that she is
having title over the B schedule property. Therefore, the First Appellate
Court rightly allowed the appeal and set aside the Judgment and Decree
of the trial Court. Therefore, the Judgment and Decree of the First
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Appellate Court is sustainable in law. The substantial question of law is
answered accordingly.
24. In the result, the Second Appeal fails and the same is
dismissed. No costs.
29.1.2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes/No
Internet: Yes
skn
To:
1.The Principal Subordinate Judge, Trichy.
2.The District Munsif, Musiri.
3.The Record Keeper,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
skn
Judgment made in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
29.01.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
