Madras High Court
Kaliyappan vs Palanisamy on 24 November, 2025
S.A.No.89 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 24.11.2025
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
S.A.No.89 of 2014
1.Kaliyappan,
S/o.Rangasami.
2.Rangammal,
W/o.Kaliyappan
3.Vasanthal @ Dhanalakshmi
W/o.Nagaraj
4.Poomani @ Lakshmi
W/o.Ponnusami
All are residing at
Muniyaboyan Street,
Pudhukothukadu,
Pudukalaiyanour Village,
Sathyamangalam Taluk. ….Appellants
Vs.
Palanisamy, (Died)
S/o.Chinnasami @ Chinnaboyan,
Arunachalam Nagar,
Nallagoundanpalayam,
Gobichettipalayam Taluk.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:06 pm )
S.A.No.89 of 2014
2.Palaniyammal W/o.Palanisamy
3.Srinivasan S/o.Palanisamy
4.Vignesh S/o.Palanisamy
R2 to R4 are residing at Nallagoundanpalayam,
Arunchala Nagar, Lakkampatti Village,
Erode District.
Sole respondent died. R2 to R4 are brought on
record as the L.R.s of the deceased sole respondent
vide order of court dated 26.03.2024 made in
C.M.P.No.274 of 2019 in S.A.No.89 of 2014 ...Respondents
PRAYER:
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure
against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.14 of 2013 passed by the
Subordinate Judge, Sathyamangalam dated 03.09.2013 confirming the
Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.52 of 2009 dated 07.02.2012 by the
District Munsif, Sathyamangalam.
APPEARANCE:
For Appellant : Mr.S.Parthasarathy
For Respondent : R1 – Died
M/s.P.T.Ramadevi for R2 to R4
2/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:06 pm )
S.A.No.89 of 2014
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2.This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated
03.09.2013 in A.S. No.14 of 2013 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge,
Sathyamangalam, confirming the judgment and decree dated 07.02.2012 made
in O.S. No.52 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif, Sathyamangalam.
3.The appellants are the defendants and the respondents are the plaintiffs
in the original suit. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as per
their rank in the trial Court.
4.The brief facts necessary for the disposal of this Second Appeal are as
follows: The plaintiff filed the suit seeking a declaration of his title to the suit
property and recovery of possession. According to the plaintiff, the suit
property was settled in his favour by his father under a settlement deed dated
20.05.1987, pursuant to which he was also put in possession. Consequent to the
settlement, mutation was effected in the revenue records and the plaintiff has
been paying property tax to the local body. The plaintiff and his family resided
in the suit property for some time. Subsequently, on account of his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:06 pm )
employment, he shifted his residence to Gopichettipalayam, leaving his mother
to reside in the suit property. His mother passed away on 09.09.2008.
Thereafter, the second defendant, the plaintiff’s sister, who resides in the
property situated on the southern side adjacent to the suit property, is alleged to
have trespassed into the suit property along with the other defendants, who are
her husband and children. They are also alleged to have taken away the original
settlement deed. When the plaintiff questioned them on 15.09.2009 and
demanded that they vacate the premises, the defendants not only refused but
also lodged a false complaint with the police. Hence, the suit came to be filed.
5.The defendants filed a written statement contending that the plaintiff
never resided in the suit property. According to them, only the second
defendant and her parents had been residing in the suit property and, after the
demise of the parents, the second defendant has been residing there along with
the other defendants for the past fifty years. It was further contended that the
suit property is Government poromboke land and, since the second defendant
and her parents were in possession, the Government issued a ‘thoraya patta’ in
their favour. The defendants denied the genuineness of the settlement deed
relied upon by the plaintiff, asserting that it was not executed by their father,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:06 pm )
Chinnasami @ Chinnaboyan. Even assuming such a deed was executed, they
contended that it never came into effect. They alleged that the plaintiff had
committed various fraudulent acts on the strength of the said false settlement
deed and that he is withholding the original deed because, if produced, it would
expose the settlement as fabricated. They further claimed that they have been in
continuous and uninterrupted possession of the suit property for more than 30
years and have also made improvements in the property and, therefore, even if
the plaintiff had any right, the same stood extinguished by lapse of time. On
these grounds, they sought dismissal of the suit.
6. In this Second Appeal, the appellants have mainly raised two grounds:
1.That the non-production of the original settlement deed by the plaintiff ought
to have been held fatal to his case; and
2.That the Courts below failed to properly appreciate the defendants’ claim of
long, continuous possession and adverse possession.
7. With regard to the non-production of the original settlement deed, the
plaintiff has specifically pleaded that the original document was taken away by
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:06 pm )
the second defendant after the demise of their mother. The second defendant
lodged a police complaint against the plaintiff on 16.09.2008, and the FIR is
marked as Ex.P22. In that complaint, the second defendant herself has stated
that the plaintiff had received money from her ten years earlier and handed over
the documents. This admission clearly shows that the original settlement deed
was in the custody of the second defendant.
8. Under Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, when it is shown that the
original document is in the possession of the adverse party, the party relying on
such document is entitled to adduce secondary evidence. In the present case,
the plaintiff produced the certified copy of the settlement deed dated
20.05.1987 as secondary evidence, which is admissible in law. Further, the
plaintiff examined one of the attesting witnesses to the settlement deed and,
thereby, proved its due execution.
9.In this factual background, the non-production of the original
settlement deed does not, in any manner, weaken the plaintiff’s case.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:06 pm )
10.The plea of adverse possession raised by the defendants is equally
untenable. The second defendant has not admitted the title of the plaintiff at any
point; rather, she has categorically denied it. In law, a plea of adverse
possession presupposes an admission of the title of the person against whom
adverse possession is claimed, and thereafter, an assertion of hostile, open and
continuous possession to the knowledge of the true owner for the statutory
period.
11.In Ex. P22, the police complaint lodged by the second defendant, she
has stated that the plaintiff, after receiving money from her ten years earlier,
handed over the property and the title deeds. This statement amounts to a claim
of title under an alleged conveyance. Such a plea based on derivative title is
wholly inconsistent with, and mutually destructive of, a plea of adverse
possession, which is based on hostile possession in denial of the true owner’s
title. On the one hand, the defendants claim derivative title through an alleged
conveyance; on the other hand, they contend that, by reason of long possession,
the plaintiff’s right has been extinguished. These mutually destructive stands
render the plea of adverse possession unsustainable.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:06 pm )
12.Moreover, the evidence on record discloses that the dispute between
the parties arose only after the demise of their mother in the year 2008. Thus,
the defendants have failed to establish the essential ingredients of adverse
possession, viz., open, continuous, uninterrupted and hostile possession for the
statutory period as against the plaintiff.
13.In the above circumstances, this Court finds no reason to interfere
with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. No
perversity, illegality or misapplication of law has been demonstrated by the
appellants. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises for
consideration in this Second Appeal.
14.Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed at the admission stage
itself. There shall be no order as to costs. The connected miscellaneous petition,
if any, is closed.
24.11.2025
ay
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:06 pm )
To
1.The Subordinate Judge,
Sathyamangalam.
2.The District Munsif,
Sathyamangalam.
3.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:06 pm )
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
ay
24.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 24/11/2025 03:21:06 pm )
