Madras High Court
Balakrishnan vs Kaliammal on 25 November, 2025
S.A.No.133 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 25.11.2025
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DHANABAL
S.A.No.133 of 2015
and
M.P.No.1 of 2015
---
Balakrishnan .. Appellant
Vs.
1. Kaliammal
2. Dhandapani (died)
3. Lakshmi
4. Porkilai (died)
5. Rajendiran
6. Silambarasan
7. Bharani
8. Muniammal
9. Prema
10. Mahalakshmi
Page No.1/29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 05:25:19 pm )
S.A.No.133 of 2015
11. Prakash
12. Annandan
13. Anjali
(Respondents 9 to 11 are brought on record
as LRs of the deceased second respondent/Dhandapani)
(Respondents 12 and 13 are brought on record
as LRs of the deceased fourth respondent/Porkilai,
vide order dated 09.07.2025 made in
C.M.P.Nos.12695, 12710 and 12699 of 2020
in S.A.No.133 of 2015 and CMP.Nos.12709, 12702
and 12707 of 2020)
.. Respondents
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
against the judgment and decree, dated 22.09.2011 passed in A.S.No.17 of 2010
on the file of the Principal Sub-Judge at Pondicherry, confirming the judgment
and decree dated 14.12.2009 passed in O.S.No.79 of 2006 on the file of the I
Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry.
Page No.2/29
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 05:25:19 pm )
S.A.No.133 of 2015
For appellants : M/s.G.Sumithra
For respondents: M/s.S.Gowsik Sundar for RR-3, 5 to 8 and 9 to 13
R-1 notice served - No appearance
RR-2 and 4 - died
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal has been preferred as against the judgment and
decree, dated 22.09.2011 passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge,
Pondicherry in A.S.No.17 of 2010, confirming the judgment and decree dated
14.12.2009 passed in O.S.No.79 of 2006 on the file of the I Additional District
Munsif Court, Pondicherry.
2. The appellant (plaintiff) has filed Original Suit No.79 of 2006 for the
relief of permanent injunction as against the respondents herein and the suit was
dismissed, as against which, the First Appeal was filed by the appellant and the
first appellate Court also dismissed the First Appeal and as against the same, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 05:25:19 pm )
unsuccessful plaintiff has filed the present Second Appeal before this Court.
3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they are
ranked in the trial Court as plaintiff and defendants.
4. The case of the plaintiff is as follows:
The suit property originally belonged to one Rathinammal being the
mother of the plaintiff and she purchased the property from one Balakrishnan by
way of sale deed, dated 23.03.1955. The said Rathinammal died and after her
demise, the plaintiff's father, namely Parthasarathy has executed a settlement
deed, dated 26.04.1996 in favour of his son and the brother of the plaintiff, i.e.
Lakshmanan in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff was given 317
Sq.Meters of "Manai" consisting of brick built house, comprised in Cadastre
No.442/1 and Re-survey No.159/35, Kanagachetty Kullam Village in Village
No.20, Kalapet Revenue Village, Pondicherry, by virtue of settlement deed, dated
29.03.1996 by his father. The said property settled in favour of the plaintiff is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 05:25:19 pm )
situated on the Southern side of the schedule mentioned property. The plaintiff's
brother, namely Lakshmanan, was employed as Senior Officer (Administration) at
Chemplast Sanmar Limited, Chennai and he had leased out the schedule
mentioned property in favour of the plaintiff and through the lease deed, dated
20.11.2001 for a period of 11 months on a monthly rent of Rs.300/-. Thereafter,
again a fresh lease deed was executed on 12.02.2004 for another eleven moths'
period on enhanced rent of Rs.450/- and the plaintiff has been in possession
and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned property as a tenant and the first
defendant, who is the adjacent land owner of the Northern side of the schedule
mentioned property, attempted to encroach upon the original schedule
mentioned property. The defendants 2 to 4 and 8 are the son and daughters of
the first defendant and the fifth defendant is the son-in-law of the first defendant
and the sixth and seventh defendants are the grand-sons of the first defendant.
Therefore, the plaintiff had filed the suit for permanent injunction as against the
defendants.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 05:25:19 pm )
5. The case of the defendants is that they have denied the title of the
property in the name of the plaintiff's mother Rathinammal, having purchased
the same from one Balakrishnan Chettiyar, son of Gopal Chettiar, by virtue of
sale deed, dated 23.03.1955, duly registered. The total extent of the area
comprised in R.S.No.159/35, correlates to Cadastre No.441 pt, which is 7 kuzhis
and 4 veesams, which is classified as "Kudiyiruppu Manai" in the Revenue
Records. Since 1960, out of total extent of 7 kuzhis and 4 veesams in
R.S.No.159/35, the first defendant, along with his family members, are in
possession and enjoyment of the suit property, to an extent of 3 kuzhis and 10
veesams on the Northern side and remaining portion on the Southern side in
R.S.No.159/35, was in possession of the plaintiff's father Parthasarathy. The
Patta and settlement register covered under R.S.No.159/35, is in the name of
Kaliammal, i.e. the first defendant and Parthasarathy as joint Pattadars. The first
defendant executed settlement deed, dated 05.12.1996 in favour of the third
defendant in respect of the property covered in R.S.No.159/35 to an extent of 3
kuzhis and 10 veesams. Pursuant to the said settlement deed, dated 05.12.1996,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 05:25:19 pm )
the third defendant has taken possession of the property and he is in possession
and enjoyment of the property. The said property of an extent of 3 kuzhis and
10 veesams in R.S.No.159/35, was used as Garden by the third defendant and
there are 4 coconut saplings and plantain trees are also existing. The third
defendant had settled the property to and in favour of her sons, namely
(1)Iyyanar, (2) Bharani and (3) Arun Kumar, by way of settlement deed, dated
06.10.2003. The sixth defendant is also having another name, Iyyanar and as
such, the defendants 6 and 7 are title-holders of the property situated in
R.S.No.159/35 to an extent of 3 kuzhis and 10 veesams and they are in
possession and enjoyment of the property.
6. It is the further case of the defendants that the Southern side of
R.S.No.159/35 was in possession and enjoyment of Parthasarathy and
thereafter, his son Lakshmanan being the brother of the plaintiff, was enjoying
the same. In order to encroach upon the property of the defendants, the
plaintiff and his brother had created a settlement deed, dated 26.04.1996 to a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 05:25:19 pm )
larger extent than they are enjoying actually. Further, the sale deed, dated
23.03.1955 is not related to the suit property and there is no cause of action for
filing the suit and the suit is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff has no locus-
standi to file the suit, as he has no right over the property. Therefore, the suit is
liable to be dismissed.
7. Based on the above said pleadings and after hearing both sides and
also on perusing the records, the trial Court framed the following issues:
(i) Whether the plaintiff took over the schedule mentioned property
for lease from Lakshmanan and is in possession of the same ?
(ii) Whether the defendants have tried to encroach upon the suit
property ?
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the permanent injunction as
prayed for ? and
(iv) To what other relief ?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 05:25:19 pm )
8. In order to prove the case before the trial Court, the plaintiff was
examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A.1 to A.8 were marked. On the side of the
defendants, the defendants 5 and 6 were examined as D.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.B-1
to B-6 were marked.
9. After hearing both sides and on perusing the records, the trial Court
dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove his prima-facie
possession and enjoyment of the suit property and all the Revenue Records
relating to the suit property, stand in the name of the joint Pattadars and that
the plaintiff has no exclusive title or possession of the property. Therefore, the
trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial
Court, the plaintiff has preferred First Appeal before the Principal Subordinate
Judge, Pondicherry in A.S.No.17 of 2010. The first appellate Court, after hearing
both sides and after perusing the records, including the judgment and decree of
the trial Court, framed the point for determination that whether the First Appeal
(Appeal Suit) filed against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the said
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 05:25:19 pm )
Appeal Suit was dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree of the trial
Court, by holding that Ex.A-1 sale deed, dated 23.03.1955 and the other
documents relate to the Cadaster No.442, but the suit property is relating to
Cadastre No.441 PT and Ex.A-2 settlement deed, dated 26.04.1996 also relates
to Cadastre No.442, whereas, the parent document Ex.A-1 relates to Cadastre
No.441. Therefore, the plaintiff failed to prove his case and the Appeal Suit was
dismissed by the first appellate Court. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of
the first appellate Court, dismissing the Appeal Suit, the plaintiff has preferred
this Second Appeal before this Court.
10. This Court admitted the Second Appeal on 04.03.2015 by
formulating the substantial question of law to the effect that, "whether the
Courts below have failed to appreciate the evidence while referring to Ex.A-2
which relates to Cadastre No.441, whereas the Courts below have held that the
said document relates to Cadastre No.442".
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 05:25:19 pm )
11. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff submitted that the
appellant has filed the suit for permanent injunction as against the
respondents/defendants in respect of the suit property. The suit property and
other properties originally belonged to Rathinammal through sale deed, dated
23.03.1955. In that sale deed, two properties were purchased and copy of the
sale deed was marked as Ex.A-1. Thereafter, the said Rathinammal died and
while so, the father of the plaintiff executed a settlement deed in favour of his
son, who is the brother of the plaintiff, namely Lakshmanan, in respect of the
suit property through settlement deed, dated 26.04.1996. Further, on
29.03.1996, the father of the plaintiff executed a settlement deed in favour of
the plaintiff in respect of the remaining properties. The settlement deed executed
in favour of the plaintiff, had been marked as Ex.A-3 and the settlement deed
executed in favour of the said Lakshmanan in respect of the suit property, had
been marked as Ex.A-2. Thereafter, in the year 1999, through Ex.A.4 dated
20.09.1999, a rectification deed was executed in respect of Ex.A-3 settlement
deed. The property settled in favour of the brother of the plainti9ff, namely
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 05:25:19 pm )
Lakshmanan, was leased out to the plaintiff through Exs.A-6 and A-7 and
therefore, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property through
lease deed from 20.11.2001 onwards.
11.1. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff further contended
that the defendants, who are having lands adjacent to the property on the
Northern side, attempted to encroach upon the property and thereby, the
plaintiff filed the suit and on the side of plaintiff before the trial Court, he was
examined as P.W.1 and he has categorically deposed about the possession and
enjoyment of the property. But the trial Court failed to consider that through
Ex.A-1 sale deed, two properties were purchased and one property is situated in
Cadastre No.442. Apart from that, on the Northern side also, some properties
were purchased along with Cadastre No.442. The Cadastre number of that
property is No.441. Therefore, the trial Court failed to consider that the property
settled in favour of his brother Lakshmanan by his father, is the suit property,
but however, the trial Court held that the said documents relate to Cadastre
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 05:25:19 pm )
No.442. The first appellate Court also failed to appreciate the evidence on the
side of the plaintiff in proper perspective and wrongly held that Ex.A-2 relates to
Cadastre No.442 instead of 441. Therefore, both the Courts below have
committed error and the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property
and he is entitled for decree of permanent injunction.
12. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/defendants
submitted that the first defendant and the plaintiff's father, namely
Parthasarathy, were jointly enjoying the property in Cadastre No.442 in
R.S.No.159/35, which correlates to Cadastre No.441, which is 3 ares and 85
sandhiyas = 7 kuzhis and 4 veesams. The said property is classified as
Kudiyiruppu Manai and the total extent of the above said 7 kuzhis and 4
veesams, is in R.S.No.159/35. The first defendant and their family members
were in possession and enjoyment of the property of an extent of 3 kuzhis 10
veesams on the Northern side. The remaining portion in Southern side was in
possession of the plaintiff's father Parthasarathy. The Patta and settlement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 05:25:19 pm )
register are in the joint names of the first defendant and the plaintiff's father
Parthasarathy. The first defendant executed a settlement deed in favour of the
third defendant for an extent of 3 kuzhis and 10 veesams in R.S.No.159/35
through settlement deed, dated 05.12.1996. In pursuant to the said settlement
deed, the third defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the property
along with his family members. Thereafter, the third defendant had settled the
property in favour of his sons, by way of registered settlement deed, dated
06.10.2003. The sixth defendant Silambarasan has another name Iyyanaar and
therefore, the defendants 6 and 7 are the absolute title-holders of the property
in R.S.No.159/35 to an extent of 3 kuzhis and 10 veesams and they are in
possession and enjoyment of the property.
12.1. While so, the plaintiff and his brother created settlement deed,
dated 26.04.1996 in respect of a larger extent than they are enjoying actually.
The sale deed, dated 23.03.1955 is no way connected with the suit Cadastre
number. On the side of the defendants, they have examined D.Ws.1 and 2 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 05:25:19 pm )
Exs.B-1 to B-6 were marked. Exs.B-1 and B-2 are the settlement registers and
Ex.B-3 is the Patta in the name of the first defendant and Ex.B.4 is the Chitta for
the property and Exs.B-5 and B-6 are the tax receipts. Therefore, the defendants
have proved that the suit property belongs to them and they are in possession
and enjoyment of the property. The plaintiff himself admitted during cross-
examination that the defendants are enjoying the property by planting plants
and coconut trees. Therefore, the Courts below have correctly dismissed the suit,
as the plaintiff failed to prove the exclusive possession of the property.
12.2. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the defendants
that, as far as the substantial question of law is concerned, there are no records
to show that the said Rathinammal purchased the property through Ex.A-1 in
Cadastre No.441 and Ex.A-2 also is not related to the Cadastre No.442.
Therefore, the Courts below have correctly dismissed the suit and the Appeal
Suit respectively and therefore, the Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 05:25:19 pm )
13. This Court heard both sides and perused the records. In this case,
the plaintiff has filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction. According to
the plaintiff, originally, the property belonged to Rathinammal and she purchased
the suit property and other properties through Ex.A-1 sale deed, dated
23.03.1955. Thereafter, the father of the plaintiff executed settlement deed in
favour of the plaintiff's brother Lakshmanan in respect of the suit property
through Ex.A-2 settlement deed, dated 26.04.1996. The property is comprised
in Cadastre No.442 in R.S.No.159/35 and it was settled to an extent of 317
Square meters in favour of the plaintiff by his father through settlement deed,
dated 29.03.1996. Thereafter, the plaintiff's brother, namely Lakshmanan who
was working in Chennai, leased out the property through lease deed, dated
20.11.2001 and another lease deed, dated 12.02.2004. Therefore, according to
the plaintiff, he is in possession and enjoyment of the property.
14. According to the defendants, the first defendant and her family
are in possession and enjoyment of the property. The total extent of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 05:25:19 pm )
property covered in R.S.No.159/35 is 3 ares and 85 sandhiyas = 7 kuzhis 4
veesams. The Northern part of 3 kuzhis, was enjoyed by the first defendant's
family and the remaining part of the property was enjoyed by the plaintiff's
father Parthasarathy. The plaintiff and his brother created settlement deed,
dated 26.04.1996 in respect of a larger extent than they are actually enjoying.
Now, based on the said settlement deed, they are claiming the suit property and
the defendants are in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.
15. Before the trial Court, the plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and
Exs.A-1 to A-8 were marked. On the side of defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were
examined and Exs.B-1 to B-6 were marked. After careful consideration of the
evidence adduced by both sides, the trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that
the plaintiff had purchased the property in Cadastre No.442, but the suit
property has been marked as Cadastre No.441 and the plaintiff had failed to
prove his possession of the property and the plaintiff also admitted the
possession of the defendants in the suit property, and therefore, the trial Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 05:25:19 pm )
dismissed the suit. The first appellate Court also in the Appeal Suit, after hearing
both sides, held that the trial Court appreciated the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.A-
1 sale deed, dated 23.03.1955. The other documents relate to Cadastre No.442,
but the suit property relates to Cadastre No.441/pt. Ex.A-2 settlement deed
relates to Cadastre No.442 and the parent document to Ex.A-2 is in Cadastre
No.442 and therefore, the plaintiff has failed to prove his case and the plaintiff is
not in possession and enjoyment of the property and accordingly, the Appeal
Suit was also dismissed.
16. This Court also perused Ex.A-1 relied upon by the plaintiff,
wherein, the said Rathinammal purchased the property in Cadastre No.442 and
bimash No.161 and 3 kuzhis and 3 sandhiyas. In this case, the Northern side -
3-1/4 kuzhis and half veesams and another property situated on the Northern
side to that property in 5-1/4 kuzhis and 3 veesams, and in total, 8 kuzhis and 3-
1/2 veesams, was purchased. There is no mention about Cadastre No.441 and
the said sale deed refers only Cadastre No.442. According to the plaintiff, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 05:25:19 pm )
Southern side of the property with bimash No.161, is situated in Cadastre No.442
and the property mentioned in the sale deed on the Northern side is situated in
Cadastre No.441 part. In order to correlate the said Cadastre number, there are
no records produced by the plaintiff.
17. Further, the plaintiff has produced Ex.A-2 settlement deed, dated
26.04.1996. On a perusal of Ex.A-2 executed by the father of the plaintiff in
favour of the brother of the plaintiff, i.e. Lakshmanan, the property is mentioned
as R.S.No.159/35 and Cadastre No.441. Ex.A-3 settlement deed, dated
29.03.1996 was executed in favour of the plaintiff in R.S.No.159/3 with Cadastre
No.442/1. There is no explanation on the side of the plaintiff to show that the
property purchased in the deed was Cadastre No.441, when there was no
reference of the property of Rathinammal about Cadastre No.441. It is not
known as to how in Ex.A-2 settlement deed, the Cadastre No.441 had been
incorporated. Further, Ex.A-4 is the rectification deed for the settlement deed of
Ex.A-3, where the larger extent of 5 kuzhis 15 veesams, was mentioned and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 05:25:19 pm )
thereafter, it was rectified as 3 kuzhis 11-3/4 veesams.
18. Further, it is not the case of the plaintiff that he filed the suit for
property settled in his favour through Ex.A-3 settlement deed in Cadastre
No.442. He has filed the suit for the property settled in favour of his brother
through Ex.A-2 settlement deed for the property in Cadastre No.441. As per
Ex.A-5 being the Revenue Record and the settlement register, the property
comprised in R.S.No.159/35 in Cadastre No.441 PT, stands in the name of
Parthasarathy and Kaliammal. The said Parthasarathy is none other than the
father of the plaintiff, and the said Kaliammal is the first defendant in the suit.
Therefore, even as per the Revenue Records, the Patta was granted in the joint
name of the plaintiff and the first defendant in R.S.No.159/35 with Cadastre
No.441/PT. The defendants have also produced Ex.B-1 settlement register dated
05.12.1996 through the said deed in R.S.No.159/35 Cadastre No.441, which was
settled in favour of the third defendant, where one of the boundaries was
referred as the plaintiff's land, i.e. the property settled in favour of the third
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 05:25:19 pm )
defendant was situated on the Northern side of the plot of Parthasarathy.
Further, as per Ex.B-2, the said property was settled in favour of the defendants
6 and 7. The defendants have also produced Ex.B-3 Patta and Ex.B-4 Chitta.
These documents show that the property is in the joint name of the plaintiff's
father and the first defendant.
19. Now, both parties are claiming the property through different
settlement deeds executed in respect of their respective extents. The Ex.A-3
settlement deed is in favour of the plaintiff in respect of R.S.No.159/3 with
Cadastre No.442/1 of an extent of 5 kuzhis and 15 veesams. Similarly, the
settlement deed executed in favour of the brother of the plaintiff, i.e.
Lakshmanan by his father, dated 26.04.1996 in Ex.A-2, pertains to the property
in R.S.No.159/35 with Cadastre No.441/PT with Patta No.354 with 5 kuzhis and
85 veesams or 2 ares and 95 sandhiyas.
20. There is no dispute in respect of the property settled in favour of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 05:25:19 pm )
the plaintiff by his father through settlement deed, dated 29.03.1996 (Ex.A-3).
According to the plaintiff, the suit property settled in favour of his brother and
the said Parthasarathy, was leased out to him. In order to prove the same, they
have produced Exs.A-6 and A-7, which are unregistered lease deeds. The said
lease deeds refer about R.S.No.159/35 with Cadastre No.441/PT of an extent of
2 ares 95 sandhiyas = 5 kuzhis 8-1/2 veesams. The plaintiff has not filed the suit
based on his title, but he filed the suit based on his possession through lease
deeds. The plaintiff has not filed the suit based on his title, but he has filed the
suit based on his possession through lease deeds. Therefore, now the plaintiff
has to prove that the said suit property is in his possession and enjoyment.
Except the above said lease deeds, no other documents have been produced to
prove that the suit property is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the
plaintiff. Per contra, Ex.A-5 being the settlement extract shows the property in
R.S.No.159/35, with Cadastre No,441 PT, which is in joint name of Parthasarathy
and Kaliammal to an extent of 3 arres 85 sandhiyas.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 05:25:19 pm )
21. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to prove his exclusive possession
over the suit property. Moreover, the defendants have claimed the property only
of an extent of 1 are 93 sandhiyas = 3 kuzhis 10 veesams = 2084 Sq.Ft. As per
Ex.A-2 settlement deed, it was executed in respect of an extent of 3 ares 95
sandhiyas, i.e. 5 kuzhis 8.5 veesams. In the said settlement deed, executed in
favour of the said Lakshmanan, it has four boundaries, i.e. on the East of
Natesan, West of road, on the North of Balakrishnan and on the South of
Lakshmanan, whereas, the four boundaries in Exs.B-1 and B-2 show that the
East of the property of Kaliammal and Lakshmi, West of Mambar Street, South of
Pandurangan and North of Parthasarathy's land. Therefore, there is a dispute in
the identification of the property. The plaintiff who filed the suit, has to prove his
exclusive possession by properly identifying the property. The plaintiff is not the
owner of the property and he is only enjoying the property based on the lease
deed and therefore, without the presence of the original owner, the title of the
property cannot be decided.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 05:25:19 pm )
22. Therefore, in the suit for permanent injunction, based on the
lease, the Court has to see only the possession of the parties. According to the
plaintiff, he is in possession of the property, but according to the defendants,
they are in possession of the property. There is no doubt that the property
mentioned in Exs.A-2 and A-3 settlement deeds, are different and the property
mentioned in Ex.A-2 is the suit property where the extent is mentioned as 5
kuzhis and 89 veesams. The defendants' documents show that the extent is 3
kuzhis 10 veesams. Therefore, the defendants are not claiming the entire
property and they are only claiming one part of the suit property. Hence, without
identification and without the presence of the original owner, the suit cannot be
decided effectively. The defendants have also not filed any suit to declare their
title over the property and the original owner of the suit property is also not
party to the suit. The plaintiff has failed to prove his possession through
sufficient documents. Moreover, the plaintiff in his cross-examination, has stated
that Ex.A-5 is in the name of the joint Pattadars, which is mentioned as
Parthasarathy and Kaliammal and the total extent is shown as 7 kuzhis and 4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 05:25:19 pm )
veesams. Further, P.W.1 admitted that Lakshmi had forcefully been enjoying the
suit property. It is further admitted by P.W.1 that the sons of Lakshmi Ammal are
enjoying the property by planting saplings and coconut plants. Therefore, the
plaintiff himself admitted in his evidence about the enjoyment of the defendants
on the property in respect of some portion of the property. When the plaintiff
has no title in his favour, being the lessee of the property, he has failed to prove
his possession, and therefore, the plaintiff has failed to prove his possession in
the suit property. It is made clear that the title of the property has not been
decided in the suit, as the plaintiff has now filed the suit based on title of the suit
is filed only based on his possession as lessee.
23. As far as the substantial question of law that, “whether the Courts
below have failed to appreciate the evidence while referring to Ex.A-2 which
relates to Cadastre No.441, whereas the Courts below have held that the said
document relates to Cadastre No.442", is concerned, the trial Court in the
judgment while referring to Ex.A-2, clearly stated that Ex.A-2 is the settlement
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 05:25:19 pm )
deed executed by the father of the plaintiff in favour of one Lakshmanan and the
said property is comprised in R.S.No.159/35 with Cadastre No.441. The first
appellate Court, in the judgment, while discussing about the property, had
clearly mentioned in paragraph 10 that Ex.A-2 settlement deed also relates to
Cadastre No.442 and the same is not correct. However, that alone is not
sufficient to allow the present Second Appeal, when the trial Court has
categorically discussed about Ex.A-2, which relates to Cadastre No.441, and the
trial Court has categorically, after elaborate discussion, came to the conclusion
that there is no evidence to prove the possession of the plaintiff. The Courts
below have discussed about the possession of the plaintiff, and even though the
Courts below have discussed about the entitlement of the property and its title,
without the presence of the original owner of the property, those findings are not
binding upon the original owner. Without his presence, the Courts below cannot
decide the title, particularly, when the suit is filed by the plaintiff as a lessee in
the suit property.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 05:25:19 pm )
24. The Courts below ought to have discussed and decided only about
the possession of the plaintiff as a lessee. Without the presence of the original
owner, the title of the property cannot be decided even incidentally in a suit for
permanent injunction based on possession. If the plaintiff claims the property
through title deed, then even in the suit for permanent injunction, the title of the
parties can be looked into incidentally, but when the suit is only based on the
lease deed, it is the duty of the Courts to ascertain as to whether the plaintiff has
been in possession and enjoyment of the property as lessee or not. However, the
plaintiff has failed to prove his possession as lessee, and therefore, the plaintiff is
not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. Thus, the substantial question
of law is answered against the plaintiff.
25. In the result, this Second Appeal fails and the same deserves to
be dismissed. Accordingly, this Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs. The miscellaneous petition is closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 05:25:19 pm )
25.11.2025
Index: Yes/no
Speaking Order: Yes/no
Neutral case citation: Yes/no
cs
To
1. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry.
2. The 1st Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry.
3. The Record Keeper, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
P.DHANABAL, J
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 05:25:19 pm )
cs
Pre-delivery Judgment
Judgment delivered on 25.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 27/11/2025 05:25:19 pm )
