Madras High Court
Arulvictoriya vs S.Gandhimani on 23 July, 2025
S.A.(MD)No.185 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.07.2025
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.ARUL MURUGAN
S.A.(MD)No.185 of 2019
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.3993 of 2019
Arulvictoriya ... Appellant/Appellant/
Plaintiff
vs
1.S.Gandhimani
2.S.Vijayaraghavan
3.S.Nagarajan ...Respondents/Respondents/
Defendants
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court,
dated 19.12.2018 made in A.S.No.31 of 2014, on the file of the Sub Court,
Sivagangai, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court, dated
09.11.2012, made in O.S.No.189 of 2009, on the file of the District Munsif
Court, Sivagangai.
For Appellant : Mr.S.P.Maharajan
For Respondents : Mr.Muthupandiyadav
1/11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 10:42:37 am )
S.A.(MD)No.185 of 2019
*****
JUDGMENT
The unsuccessful plaintiff is before this Court on appeal.
2. The Second Appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree,
dated 19.12.2018, in A.S.No.31 of 2014, on the file of the Subordinate
Court, Sivagangai, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 09.11.2012,
in O.S.No.189 of 2009, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivagangai.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per the
litigative status before the trial Court.
4. It is the case of the plaintiff that she had purchased 1 acre of the
property on 13.05.1996 through a registered sale deed for valuable
consideration. The plaintiff, pursuant to her purchase had been carrying on
cultivation in the property in S.No.49/2. The plaintiff had leased out the
suit property for a play ground. When the property was sub-divided, a
portion of the property which was sub-divided as S.No.49/2A1C had been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 10:42:37 am )
wrongly included and patta was granted in favour of the defendants' father.
In this regard, on 10.04.2009, the plaintiff had filed a petition to the
Revenue Divisional Officer. On coming to know about the same, the
defendants are attempting to encroach the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff
has come up with the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.
5. The defendants resisted the suit contending that the defendants'
father Shanmugam @ Shanmugam Sundaram Pillai was in possession of
the suit property in S.No.49/2A1C for the past 60 years. In view of the
possession and enjoyment, Adangal had been issued and also 10A(1)
records stand in the name of the defendants' father. Further the defendants'
father had also sold a portion of the property in S.No.49/2A1C measuring
4 cents through a sale deed, dated 26.03.2004, in favour of one Rajeswari
and the purchaser is in possession of the property to that extent of 4 cents.
The plaintiff, who had purchased the properties recently wanted the
defendants also to sell this suit property to the plaintiff, which the
defendants' refused and as such, the plaintiff had come up with the suit with
false claim and sought for dismissal of the suit and also sought for counter
claim.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 10:42:37 am )
6. During trial, the plaintiff examined herself as P.W.1 and one
Radhakrishnan as P.W.2 and marked exhibits A.1 to A.6. The second
defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and one Irulappan and Velayutham as
D.W.2 and D.W.3 and marked exhibits B.1 to B.3.
7. The trial Court, after analysing the evidences, came to the
conclusion that when the plaintiff had purchased the property measuring
1 acre in S.No.49/2, which was sub-divided and patta was issued in favour
of the plaintiff, that property purchased by the plaintiff does not include
13 cents, for which, patta was issued in favour of the defendants' father in
S.No.49/2A1C in Ex.B.1 and thereby had dismissed the suit and allowed the
counter claim. On appeal, the lower appellate Court reappraised the
evidence and on finding that since the plaintiff failed to produce the copy of
the patta issued in her favour in S.No.49/2A1B held that adverse inference
has been drawn and only if the plaintiff shows that there is a lesser extent
available than the lands purchased through the sale deed, the proposition
that the boundary will prevail over the extent will be applicable and as such,
dismissed the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 10:42:37 am )
Assailing the concurrent findings of fact, the plaintiff had preferred the
above Second Appeal.
8. The Second Appeal has not been admitted and this Court, by order
dated 15.04.2019, only issued notice to the respondents.
9. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant argued that when
the plaintiff had filed the sale deed in Ex.A.2 and also the lease agreement
in Ex.A.3, she has proved her title and when the defendants had only filed
patta in Ex.B.1, patta will not be a document conferring any title, the Courts
below have erroneously dismissed the suit and decreed the counter claim,
placing reliance on the patta in Ex.B.1 and therefore, the findings are
perverse and sought for intereference of this Court.
10. Mr.S.Muthupandiyadav, learned Counsel appearing for the
respondents argued that the plaintiff had though purchased the property
through sale deed in Ex.A.2, she had purchased only an extent of 1 acre by
specific boundaries and for which, after sub-division, patta had also been
issued in her favour. The plaintiff purposely had avoided filing of patta, as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 10:42:37 am )
the fact that the plaintiff does not have right in S.No.49/2A1C would come
out. Further it his vehement contention that even the lease agreement relied
on by the plaintiff in Ex.A.3 is in respect of the lands in S.No.49/2A1A and
does not include S.Nos.49/2A1B and 49/2A1C, those documents would not
enure to the benefit of the plaintiff and therefore, the Courts below have
rightly dismissed the suit and decreed the counter claim, which needs no
intereference and sought for dismissal of the appeal.
11. Heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available
on record.
12. Admittedly, the plaintiff had purchased an extent of 1 acre of
lands through a sale deed dated 13.05.1996 in Ex.A.2. As per the sale deed,
1 acre has been purchased with specific boundaries. Though at the time of
purchase by the plaintiff, the property was situated in S.No.49/2, admittedly
they were vast extent of property available. After sub-division, the property
purchased by the plaintiff had been sub-divided and the patta in the sub-
divided S.No.49/2A1B has been issued in favour of the plaintiff. The
plaintiff had come up with the suit claiming for declaration and permanent
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 10:42:37 am )
injunction in respect of the suit property having S.No.49/2A1C. It is the
claim of the plaintiff that when the sub-division was carried out, for the
lands to 13 cents in S.No.49/2A1C which also forms part of the land in
S.No.49/2A1B, patta had been wrongly issued in favour of the defendants'
father.
13. It is the specific claim of the plaintiff that 13 cents in which patta
was issued for the defendants' father in S.No.49/2A1C forms part of S.No.
49/2A1B. When the plaintiff had come up with such a claim and when
admittedly the patta has been issued in her favour for the lands purchased by
her in S.No.49/2A1B, the plaintiff ought to have filed the copy of the patta
issued in her favour. Only on the perusal of the patta, it would be revealed
as to what was the exact extent for which patta was granted in favour of the
plaintiff. The plaintiff, who had come up with the suit for declaration and
permanent injunction, is expected to prove her claim through the best
evidence available with her. Further as per Section 101 of the Indian
Evidence Act, the onus was on the plaintiff to discharge her burden to prove
the claim made by her.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 10:42:37 am )
14. When admittedly, the patta was issued in favour of the plaintiff
for the S.No.49/2A1B, then the failure on the part of the plaintiff purposely
in not filing the patta before the Court would only lead to an adverse
inference to the effect that if the patta is produced, then the fact that the
patta has been issued for the entire extent of 1 acre purchased by the
plaintiff in Ex.A.2 would be revealed.
15. Only if the plaintiff files the copy of the patta granted in her
favour and establishes the fact that when she purchased 1 acre land through
a sale deed in Ex.B.2, in the field, only a lesser extent of land is available,
then the proportion that the boundaries will prevail over the extent would be
applicable. But in the instant case, when the plaintiff has not brought any
documents to establish that the lands available with her in patta is lesser
than the extent which was conveyed to her in the sale deed, the plaintiff has
miserably failed to prove her claim.
16. Further it is to be noted that the defendants' father had been in
long possession of the suit property based on which patta in Ex.B.1 came to
be issued in favour of the defendants' father. Based on the patta issued and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 10:42:37 am )
also his ownership in the suit property, out of 13 cents of land, the
defendants' father had already sold 4 cents of land to one Rajeswari as early
as on 26.03.2004 and the copy of the sale deed has also been filed and
marked in Ex.B.3. When the plaintiff claims that she is entitled for the
entire 13 cents in S.No.49/2A1C, the failure and silence on the part of the
plaintiff for not having chosen to challenge the sale deed executed by the
defendants' father in Ex.B.3 conveying a portion of 4 cents would go to
detrimental to the claim of the plaintiff. In the absence of any such
challenge and also in view of the documents filed by the defendants
establishing their right in respect of the suit property and the plaintiff
having failed to file any documents to prove that the extent purchased by
her includes the land in patta covered in Ex.B.1, the Courts below had
rightly arrived at concurrent finding of the fact that the plaintiff had failed
to prove her claim and thereby had dismissed the suit, decreeing the counter
claim.
17. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the
concurrent findings arrived at by the Courts below. No question of law,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 10:42:37 am )
much less a substantial question of law arises for consideration in the
Second Appeal.
18. Accordingly, the Second Appeal stands dismissed. However,
there is no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected Civil
Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
23.07.2025
Internet :Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
NCC :Yes/No
SSL
To
1.The Subordinate Court, Sivagangai.
2.The District Munsif Court, Sivagangai.
3. The Record Keeper,
V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 10:42:37 am )
G.ARUL MURUGAN, J.
SSL
Judgment made in
23.07.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 30/07/2025 10:42:37 am )
