Madras High Court
Bhoopathy vs Sivakami @ Pappathi on 14 November, 2025
S.A.No.397 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 21.08.2025
Pronounced on 14.11.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN
THILAKAVADI
S.A.No.397 of 2019 and
C.M.P. No.5797 of 2019
Bhoopathy ... Appellant
vs.
1. Sivakami @ Pappathi
Krishnaveni (died)
2. Gopal
3. Chandrasekaran
4. Ponnambalam ...Respondents
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908 against the
judgment and decree dated 18.09.2017 passed in A.S. No.28 of 2014, on
the file of the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur, confirming the
Judgment and decree dated 27.03.2014 passed in O.S.No.86 of 2008, on
the file of the Subordinate Court, Poonamallee.
Page 1 of 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:25:35 pm )
S.A.No.397 of 2019
For Appellant : Mr. J.R.K. Bhavanantham
For Respondents : No appearance.
JUDGMENT
In this Second Appeal, challenge is made to the judgment and
decree dated 18.09.2017 passed in A.S. No.28 of 2014, on the file of the
Principal District Court, Thiruvallur, confirming the Judgment and decree
dated 27.03.2014 passed in O.S.No.86 of 2008, on the file of the
Subordinate Court, Poonamallee.
2. The unsuccessful plaintiff before both the courts below has filed
the present Second Appeal. He filed a suit in O.S. No.86/2008 before the
learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, for the following reliefs:
1) Declaration that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit
property.
2) Recovery of possession after removing all the structures in
the suit property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:25:35 pm )
3) Directing the defendants to pay future mesne profits at the
rate of Rs.2,000/- per month from the date of plaint till the date
of delivery of vacant possession of the suit property and for
costs.
3. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property with larger
extent was originally owned by one Kovappa and he has sold 0.32 cents
to one Ramasamy by virtue of sale deed dated 20.07.1956 and retained
remaining 0.2 cents on the southern side. It is the contention of the
plaintiff that the said 0.2 cents was settled in favour of one Kesava
Naicker by a settlement deed dated 19.08.1957 and handed over
possession to Kesava Naicker. It is the further contention of the plaintiff
that Kesava Naicker in turn sold the said property to plaintiff's wife
Bhanumathi under the sale deed dated 26.07.1988. According to the
plaintiff, he and his wife Bhanumathi have put up a small structure in the
suit property and on 01.03.2008 the defendants have demolished the said
structure and had put up a small shed inspite of the objections made by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:25:35 pm )
the plaintiff. Plaintiff's wife is not alive. With the above contentions the
suit has been filed for the reliefs above stated.
4. The claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the defendants by
stating that even though Kovappa Reddy sold 0.32 cents to Ramasamy,
he had handed over possession of entire 0.34 cents to Ramasamy. It is
the further contention of the defendants that by sale deed dated
07.03.1958, the said Ramasamy has sold the entire 0.34 cents in favour
of one Pachaiammal. The legal heirs of Pachaiammal, i.e., the
defendants 2 to 5 have settled 0.2 cents in favour of the 1 st defendant by
settlement deed dated 05.07.2007. According to the defendants, the 1st
defendant has obtained Ex.B2 patta in her favour. Ex.B2 is dated
12.05.2008. The settlement deed in favour of 1st defendant has been
marked as Ex.B1 by the defendants and the certified copy of the same
was produced as Ex.A5 by the plaintiff. It is the contention of the
defendants that after the sale in favour of Ramasamy, Kovappa was not at
all in possession of the suit property and the defendants and their
predecessor in title are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:25:35 pm )
for past 50 years. Hence prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. The learned trial judge, on an appreciation of evidence, came to
the conclusion that the suit is clearly barred by limitation and that the
plaintiff failed to prove his possession in the suit property from 1957.
Accordingly the learned trial judge by a judgment and decree dated
27.03.2014 dismissed the suit without costs.
6. The said decree of the trial court, when challenged before the
lower appellate court, namely, the Principal District Court, Tiruvallur, the
learned lower appellate judge, on a re appreciation of evidence,
concurred with the findings of the trial court and confirmed the decree
passed by the trial court by a judgment and decree dated 18.09.2017. It
is as against the said decree of the lower appellate court confirming the
decree of the trial court, by which, the suit filed by the plaintiff was
dismissed, the present second appeal has been filed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:25:35 pm )
7. Heard Mr. J.R.K. Bhavanantham, learned counsel for the
appellant. Despite notice, there is no representation on behalf of the
respondents.
8. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant /
plaintiff is that, the courts below having observed that the land measuring
34 cents comprised in S.No.74/2B belonged to one Kovappa Reddy and
the plaintiff having proved that the said Kovappa Reddy had sold only 32
cents to one Ramasamy under a sale deed dated 20.07.1956 under whom
the defendants are tracing title, and that the said Kovappa Reddy retained
0.2 cents on the southern portion and the same was sold to the plaintiff
on 26.07.1988 under Ex.A2, the courts below ought to have decreed the
suit to an extent of 0.2 cents in favour of the plaintiff. It is not in dispute
that the plaintiff and the defendants are tracing their title from Kovappa
Reddy who originally owned 0.34 cents of land in S.No.74/2B.
According to the plaintiff, the said Kovappa Reddy executed a sale deed
in favour of one Ramasamy under Ex.A3 to an extent of 0.32 cents alone
and retained 0.2 cents with him. It is further submitted that the southern
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:25:35 pm )
portion is shown as the property of Kovappa Reddy in Ex.A3 sale deed.
He then executed a settlement deed under Ex.A1 in favour of one
Kesavan on 19.08.1957, i.e., one year after execution of Ex.A3 sale deed.
Whereas, the contention of the defendants is that though the said
Kovappa Reddy sold 0.32 cents of land under Ex.A3 sale deed in favour
of Ramasamy, he handed over possession of entire 0.34 cents to
Ramasamy. Therefore, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the
possession of 0.2 cents was retained by Kovappa Reddy and that the
settlement deed in favour of Kesavan was acted upon and he was in
possession of the said property. No revenue records was produced on the
side of the plaintiff to establish the same. It is also not established by the
plaintiff as to who has constructed the superstructure in the above 0.2
cents of land. Though it is contended that on 01.03.2008 the plaintiff was
dispossessed by the defendants, the plaintiff failed to prove that he was in
possession of the suit property prior to the alleged dispossession on
01.03.2008. No doubt, Ex.A3 sale deed reveals that only 0.32 cents was
sold to Ramasamy and the southern boundary of the property conveyed
under the said sale deed is shown to be retained by Kovappa Reddy. But,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:25:35 pm )
the burden is on the plaintiff to show that the possession was handed
over by Kovappa Reddy to Kesavan and thereafter, the plaintiff's wife
Banumathy and the plaintiff were in possession of the above 0.2 cents of
land. As rightly pointed out by the courts below, as per Article 65 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, claiming for possession of immovable property
based on title, the suit ought to have been filed within a period of 12
years from the date when the possession of the defendants becomes
adverse to the plaintiff. Since the plaintiff failed to prove that the plaintiff
and his predecessor in title were in possession and enjoyment of the suit
property from 1957, the year of execution of Ex.A1 sale deed and was
dispossessed on 01.03.2008, the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation.
Moreover, the plaintiff himself admitted that he visited the suit property
lastly only during 1988. Hence, the contention of the appellant/plaintiff
that he was dispossessed on 01.03.2008 cannot be sustained. No
perversity or infirmity is found in the said findings of the courts below.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:25:35 pm )
9. In the result,
i. The Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
ii. the judgment and decree dated 18.09.2017 passed in A.S. No.28
of 2014, on the file of the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur,
confirming the Judgment and decree dated 27.03.2014 passed in
O.S.No.86 of 2008, on the file of the Subordinate Court,
Poonamallee, is upheld.
14.11.2025
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
bga
To
1. The Principal District Court, Thiruvallur.
2. The Subordinate Court, Poonamallee
3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:25:35 pm )
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI,J
bga
Pre delivery Judgment in
S.A.No.397 of 2019 and
14.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 05:25:35 pm )
