Madras High Court
Palaniammal vs Mahalingam on 14 November, 2025
S.A.No.118 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 20.08.2025
Pronounced on 14.11.2025
Coram:
The Honourable Mrs.Justice K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
Second Appeal No.118 of 2020
and C.M.P.Nos.2570 of 2020
Palaniammal .. Appellant
versus
1.Mahalingam
2.Nagarathinam .. Respondents
Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 CPC, praying to set aside
the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2019 made in A.S.No.5 of 2019 on the
file of Sub Court, Udumalpet, confirming the judgment and decree dated
07.12.2018 made in O.S.No.506 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif,
Court, Udumalpet
For Appellant : Mr.R.Babu
For Mr.B.Gopalakrishnan
For Respondents : Mr.N.Thiagarajan
for R1 and R2
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 08:50:14 pm )
S.A.No.118 of 2020
JUDGMENT
The above second appeal arise out of the judgment and decree dated
dated 25.07.2019 made in A.S.No.5 of 2019 on the file of Sub Court,
Udumalpet, confirming the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2018 made in
O.S.No.506 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Udumalpet.
2. The unsuccessful plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.
3.This second appeal is admitted on the following substantial
questions of law:
(i) Whether the Courts below are right in dismissing
the suit as prayed for?
(ii) Whether the Courts below are right in coming to
the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove the
boundaries mentioned in the patta i.e., Ex.A1?
(iii) Whether the Courts below are right in dismissing
the suit, without considering the judgment and decree in suit
filed by the respondents/plaintiffs in O.S.No.193 of 2012,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 08:50:14 pm )
which was dismissed?
(iv) Whether the Courts below are right in rejecting
the deposition of P.W.1 and D.W.2?
4.The case of the plaintiff is that on 23.09.2003 patta was issued in
favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property and the plaintiff is alone
in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff has put up a
hut in the suit property and residing there with her husband. While so, the
defendants are attempting to dispossess the plaintiff from the suit property
without any right whatsoever. Hence, the suit.
5.On the other hand, the claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the
defendants stating that, the 3rd defendant has purchased the property in
Survey No.1034/16 from one Karuppayi and Angammal on 21.06.1995 for
which patta No.799 was issued in favour of the above vendors. Thereafter,
the 3rd defendant settled the above property in favour of his mother on
03.01.2012. When the defendants were making arrangements to construct a
house under the 'Pasumai' scheme in Survey No.1034/16, and while
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 08:50:14 pm )
dumping the building materials in the promboke land situate in Survey
No.1034/15 which is on the east of Survey No.1034/16, the plaintiff
obstructed the same. The 1st defendant is residing in the hut put up in
S.No.1034/15 along with his mother. The defendants 2 and 3 filed a suit
against the present plaintiff and others in O.S.No.193/2012 for declaration
of title and for permanent injunction in which, interim injunction was
granted against the plaintiff and others. It is submitted that the description
of property given in the schedule of property differs from the description of
property mentioned in the patta issued in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the
suit property do not belong to the plaintiff and therefore, prayed for
dismissal of the suit.
6.The Courts below based on the available materials on record
dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff. Aggrieved by this, the present
second appeal is preferred by the plaintiff.
7.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff would
submit that the Government of Tamil Nadu on 23.09.2003 issued Ex.A.1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 08:50:14 pm )
patta in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. The suit filed
by the defendants in O.S.No.193/2012 was dismissed by the learned Sub
Judge, Udumalai and the same was admitted by the defendants during their
cross examination. He would further submit that the patta issued in favour
of the appellant is only in respect of S.No.1034/15, which is the suit
property. The defendants though claimed ownership in the suit property,
failed to prove the same with any documentary evidence. While so, the
Courts below without considering the facts and circumstances of the case
erroneously dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff.
8.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant
would submit that, the plaintiff failed to give correct description of the suit
property and prove her title and possession in the suit property and
therefore, the Courts below have rightly dismissed the suit filed by the
plaintiff which warrants no interference by this Court.
9.Heard on both sides and records perused.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 08:50:14 pm )
10.It is well settled legal proposition that, a suit for permanent
injunction cannot be maintained without a proper and identifiable
description of the immovable property, including boundaries or a
map/sketch, as mandate under Order 7 Rule 3 of CPC.
The description of the property in the present suit is given as under:
jpUg;g{h; gjpt[ khtl;lk; fzpa{h; rhh;gjpt[ khtl;lk;. cLkiyg;ngl;il
tl;lk;. jw;nghJ klj;Jf;Fsk; jhY}f;fh. flj;J}u; fpuhkk; f/r/1034/15
gh/tp!;jPuzk; 2 brz;l; cs;s ,lKk; mjpy; fpHf;F Kfkhf rpbkz;l; rPl;
nghl;L fl;;oa[s;s tPl;Lf;F brf;Fge;jp
fhypaplj;jpw;Fk; ===== tlf;F
ghijf;Fk; ===== fpHf;F
fhypaplj;jpw;Fk; ===== bjw;F
fhypaplk; kw;Wk; bjd;tly; ghijf;Fk; ====== nkw;F
,jd; kj;jpapy; c;ss tPLk; mijr; nrh;e;j fjt[ epyt[ . fl;Lf;nfhg;g[k;
khK:y; tHp eil ghj;jpa';fSk; rfpjk;/
Where as Ex.A1 patta was issued for the property as described as
hereunder:
thjp bgahpy; muR mspj;j tPl;L kid Xg;gilt[ cj;jut[ th/rh/M/1
brhj;J brf;Fge;jp tpguj;jpy; fPH;fz;lthW Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ/
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 08:50:14 pm )
g[y vz;/ 1034/15 gh
fhypaplj;jpw;Fk ===== tlf;F
ghijf;F ======fpHf;F
fhypaplj;jpw;Fk; ====== bjw;F
fhypaplj;jpw;Fk; ====== nkw;fpy; 2 brz;l; epyk; vd;W
Fwpg;gplg;gl;Ls;sJ/
11.Therefore, there is discrepancy with regard to the eastern boundary
in Ex.A1 patta. The plaintiff failed to establish that on the east of the
property there lies a north south pathway has mentioned in the description
of the plaint schedule. The plaintiff failed to establish that Ex.A1 patta was
issued only in respect of the suit property. Moreover, from Ex.X1 filed map
it is seen that the property in Survey No.1034/16 lies on the east of the north
south pathway and that the lands lying on the north, south and east of survey
No.1034/16 are comprised in survey No.1034/2015. Where as, the plaintiff
is claiming the property lying on the east of survey No.1034/16 in the
present suit. But in Ex.A1 patta it is mentioned that the said property lies to
the east of the said pathway. Therefore, it is made clear that the subject
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 08:50:14 pm )
matter of the suit is not one and the same with that of the property described
in Ex.A1 patta. Moreover, the evidence of P.W.2 would also reveal that
Ex.A1 patta is not related to the suit property. The plaintiff, being the suitor,
bears the burden of proving title, possession, and enjoyment of the disputed
property. The plaintiff failed to provide a clear and identifiable description
of the property, including boundaries, renders the suit unsustainable. The
plaintiff ought to have taken steps such as seeking a commission, to identify
the disputed property. Failure by the plaintiff to take appropriate steps to
substantiate his claim, he is not entitled for the relief of injunction against
the defendants. It is well settled legal proposition of law that when a person
seeks bare injunction based on possession, he has to prima facie identify the
property for which the relief is claimed. The Courts below rightly came to
the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to prove her case. The fact that the
suit filed by the defendants in O.S.No.193/2012 was dismissed does not
improve the case of the plaintiff. The plaintiff must establish her case and
cannot pick up holes from the defendant's case. The Courts cannot shift this
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 08:50:14 pm )
burden on to the defendant. No perversity or infirmity found in the findings
of the Courts below. All the substantial questions of law are answered
against the appellant/plaintiff.
12.In the result,
(i) the second appeal is dismissed.
(ii) the judgment and decree dated 25.07.2019 made in A.S.No.5 of
2019 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Udumalpet, confirming the judgment
and decree dated 07.12.2018 made in O.S.No.506 of 2012 passed by the
learned District Munsif, Udumalpet is upheld. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
14.11.2025
vsn
Index: Yes/No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 08:50:14 pm )
To
1.The Sub Court, Udumalpet,
2. The District Munsif, Court, Udumalpet
3.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 08:50:14 pm )
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI,J.
vsn
Pre- delivery judgment made in
14.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 17/11/2025 08:50:14 pm )
