Madras High Court
Chokkalingam vs Bhagyalakshmi on 10 October, 2025
S.A.Nos.219 & 221 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 06.08.2025
Pronounced on 10.10.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
S.A.Nos.219 & 221 of 2020
C.M.P.Nos.2349 of 2022 and 5827 of 2024
S.A.No.219 of 2020
1.Chokkalingam
2.Balashanmugam
3.Sudhakar ...Appellant
Vs.
1.Bhagyalakshmi
2.Jothi Arunachalam
3.Umamaheswari
...Respondents
[*R3 impleaded as party
respondent vide Court order
dated 26.02.2024 made in
C.M.P.No.2138 of 2002 in
S.A.No.219 of 2020 (PBBJ)]
Page 1 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 04:06:02 pm )
S.A.Nos.219 & 221 of 2020
S.A.No.221 of 2020
1.Chokkalingam
2.Balashanmugam
3.Manohar A.M ...Appellant
Vs.
1.Bhagyalakshmi
2.Jothi Arunachalam
3.The Sub-Collector,
Pollachi.
4.The Tahsildar,
Pollachi Taluk.
5.Umamaheshwari
6.The Tahsildar,
Anaimalai Taluk, Coimbatore District.
[* R5 & R6 are impleaded as the
party respondents vide Court
order dated 26.02.2024 made in
C.M.P.No.13510 of 2021 in
S.A.No.221 of 2020 (PBBJ)]
...Respondents.
Common Prayer : Second Appeals filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908
to set aside the decree and judgment dated 27.06.2013 in O.S.Nos.275 &
293 of 2006, on the file of the District Munsif, Pollachi, as confirmed the
Page 2 of 14
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 04:06:02 pm )
S.A.Nos.219 & 221 of 2020
Judgment and decree dated 27.03.2019 passed in A.S. Nos.22 & 31 of
2013, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Pollachi.
For Appellant
in both appeals : Mr.A.S.Vijayaragavan
For Respondents : Mr.G.Ponnambala Thiyagarajan
for R1 to R3 in S.A.No.219 of 2020 and
for R1, R2 and R5 in S.A.No.221 of 2020
Mr.V.Ramesh, Government Advocate
for R3, R4 and R6 in S.A.No.221 of 2020
COMMON JUDGMENT
The above second appeals arise out of the judgment and decree
dated 27.03.2019 passed in A.S. Nos.22 of 2013 & 31 of 2013 on the file
of the learned Sub Judge, Pollachi, confirming the judgment and decree
dated 27.06.2013 in O.S.Nos.275 & 293 of 2006 on the file of the
learned District Munsif Judge, Pollachi.
2.The Substantial questions of law raised in these second appeals
are as follows:
'' (i) Whether the Courts below were right in
upholding the title of the respondents based on the
partition deed of the year 1962 and patta granted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 04:06:02 pm )
S.A.Nos.219 & 221 of 2020
overlooking the fact that the appellants had
purchased the suit property even during the year
1934 and the sale deed has been produced as Ex.B.1
in O.S.No.275 of 2006?
(ii) Whether the Courts below were right in
concluding that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.275 of 2006
have established their possession of the entire
property as on the date of the suit? ''
3.The suit in O.S.No.275 of 2006 was filed by the plaintiffs
therein for permanent injunction against the defendants in the above suit.
The suit in O.S.No.293 of 2006 was filed by the defendants in
O.S.No.275 of 2006 for declaration of title and for permanent injunction,
against the plaintiffs in O.S.No.275 of 2006.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per
their ranks in O.S.No.275 of 2006.
5.The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit properties are the house
and vacant site acquired by the husband of the 1st plaintiff namely
Muruganandam through a registered partition deed, dated 15.03.1962.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 04:06:02 pm )
S.A.Nos.219 & 221 of 2020
From then onwards the said Muruganandam had been in possession and
enjoyment of the suit properties till his demise on 30.01.1998. The
plaintiffs as legal heirs of Muruganandam are in possession and
enjoyment of the suit properties. The 2nd plaintiff is the son of the 1st
plaintiff, left to Tiruppur for his job and the 1st plaintiff alone is residing
in the suit property and has been doing coolie work for her livelihood.
The plaintiffs have paid house tax, electricity charges etc. As such they
have got the suit properties measured on payment of necessary fees to the
Revenue Authorities and obtained a certified copy of the field map with
appropriate measurements of the suit property. The defendants are the
owners of the properties lying on the west of the suit property and
insisted the plaintiffs to sell the same to them for a low price for which
the plaintiffs refused. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants joined
together and attempted to fence the suit properties along with their
adjacent property and it was prevented by the plaintiffs. The defendants
were influential persons. Hence the suit.
6.The claim of the plaintiffs was resisted by the defendants 1 & 2
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 04:06:02 pm )
S.A.Nos.219 & 221 of 2020
in O.S.No.275 of 2006 by stating that the plaintiffs are not the absolute
owners of the suit property. The husband of the 1st plaintiff namely
Muruganandam had his house property on the eastern side of the suit
property which was derived by him through a registered partition deed,
dated 15.03.1962. About 15 persons and including the grand fathers of
these defendants have jointly purchased the property to an extent of 5 ¼
cents including the suit property through a registered sale deed, dated
18.02.1934 in which the proper measurements were mentioned. Ever
since the date of the said purchase they had been in continuous
possession and enjoyment followed by the defendants. There were
recitals in the said sale deed about two mortgages and the same were
redeemed by the grand fathers of the defendants. The property is now
lying vacant site. The plaintiffs being the neighbouring house owners
have created false documents attempting to grab the property of the
defendants. After obtaining an ex-parte interim order from this Court the
plaintiffs have removed the stone pillars in the suit property which was
put up by the defendants. There is no cause of action for the suit. The
description of property in the suit is incorrect. Hence, prayed for
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 04:06:02 pm )
S.A.Nos.219 & 221 of 2020
dismissal of suit with costs.
7.After full trial, the trial Court by its common judgment dated
27.06.2013 decreed the suit in O.S.No.275/2006 and dismissed the suit in
O.S.No.293 of 2006. Aggrieved by this, the defendants in
O.S.No.275/2006 preferred the appeal suits in A.S.Nos.22/2013 and
31/2013 respectively. The First Appellate Court by its judgment and
decree dated 27.03.2019 dismissed the appeal suits, confirming the
judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Challenging the above
judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, the present
second appeals are preferred by the above defendants.
8.The learned counsel for the defendants/appellants submits that in
the absence of pleadings as to how the suit property came to the
ownership and possession of Ramasamy Pillai, father of Muruganandam
under whom the plaintiffs' claim their right over the suit property, the
Courts below ought not to have granted the decree in favour of the
plaintiffs. He would submit that in Ex.A1 Notice dated 12.08.2010 issued
by the Executive Officer, Anaimalai Panchayat, neither the extent of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 04:06:02 pm )
S.A.Nos.219 & 221 of 2020
property nor the measurement of four sides of the suit property has been
mentioned. While so, in the plaint the measurements have been given
without any basis. The Courts below erroneously decreed the suit in
favour of the plaintiffs based on the revenue records which is incorrect
for the reason that the revenue records cannot be the basis for title. The
plaintiffs have not produced any documents to show their possession in
the suit property. Except for the partition deed dated 15.03.1962, the
plaintiffs have not produced any other document to prove their title. It is
not established by the plaintiffs that how Muruganandam's father is
entitled to the properties that were partitioned in the year 1962.
Therefore, the tracing of title to the Suit property by the plaintiffs is
incomplete, since Muruganandam's title to the suit property was not
established by the plaintiffs. Moreover, when there is dispute with regard
to the title of the property, a bare injunction suit is not maintainable. He
would further submit that the defendants have established their title to
the suit property by virtue of a purchase by 15 persons, i.e., their
predecessors in interest under a sale deed dated 18.02.1934 to maintain
the suit property in O.S.No.293 of 2006 as Nanthavanam and also to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 04:06:02 pm )
S.A.Nos.219 & 221 of 2020
construct a choultry for the benefit of the members of Pandiya Vellalar
Caste/ Community residing at Anaimalai Village and that the defendants
are claiming title only under the said predecessors in interest. Since the
plaintiffs were trying to grab the suit property, the defendants were
constrained to file the suit in O.S.No.293 of 2006 for declaratory relief
and for permanent injunction. He would further submit that the
measurements under the Natham Nilavari Thittam will not affect the
rights of the Pandiya Vellalar Community in the suit property in
O.S.No.293 of 2006 and that the properties involved in the above two
suits are different and not one and the same. The actual extent of the suit
property in O.S.No.275 of 2006 is 5.00 cents. Whereas, the extent of the
suit property in O.S.No.293 of 2006 is 5.25 cents as described in sale
deed dated 18.02.1934. The measurements and boundaries of the suit
property in O.S.No.293 of 2006 are clearly mentioned as per the
measurements and boundaries given in the above sale deed.
9.Heard on both sides and records perused.
10. Per contra, the existence of the suit property in O.S.No.293 of
2006 is not established by the defendants. Though, it is contended by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 04:06:02 pm )
S.A.Nos.219 & 221 of 2020
defendants that from the date of purchase in the year 1934, the
predecessors in title were in possession and enjoyment of the above said
properties, the same has not been established by the defendants. Except
the sale deed dated 18.02.1934 no other documents were filed on the side
of the defendants to establish their possession and enjoyment in the suit
property. It is also not established whether the sale deed dated
18.02.1934 came into force and acted upon. It is also not established by
the defendants that the property described in O.S.No.275 of 2006 and the
property described in O.S.No.293 of 2006 are different and not one and
the same. Moreover, the description of property mentioned in the plaint is
a repetition of the document dated 18.02.1934. But the defendants failed
to produce any other document to establish their right and possession in
the suit property. The defendants also failed to establish that their
property is situated on the south of the suit property in O.S.No.275 of
2006. Moreover, in the plaint in O.S.No.293 of 2006, it is stated that 15
persons have purchased the suit property. While so, only 3 persons have
filed the above suit. Nothing is stated in the plaint for not including the
other owners or successors of the remaining purchasers. Though, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 04:06:02 pm )
S.A.Nos.219 & 221 of 2020
defendants submitted that the recitals in the sale deed, dated 18.02.1934,
reveals that two usufructuary mortgages in favour of one Nacthimuthu
Chetty and his wife Smt.Kunjammal was cleared by the purchaser, the
same is not established by the defendants. The recitals in the sale deed
alone cannot be accepted without any corroboratory evidence. Moreover,
the defendants claimed that the plaintiffs have removed the stone pillars
put up by the defendants in the suit property is also not established by the
defendants.
11.On the other hand, the plaintiffs in O.S.No.275 of 2006 proved
their possession and enjoyment of the suit property by producing Ex.A1
partition deed dated 15.03.1962, and other documents such as Exs.A.4 to
A7 respectively. Though the defendants have admitted the issuance of
patta in favour of the plaintiffs, they have not taken any steps to cancel
the same. Moreover, the defendants would submit that the description of
property found in the plaint is not in confirmity with Ex.A.1 partition
deed and that no such measurements is given in the above partition deed
while so, in the schedule of property the plaintiffs have given specific
measurements and four boundaries without any basis. But, on the side of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 04:06:02 pm )
S.A.Nos.219 & 221 of 2020
the plaintiffs, the field map for S.F.No.1062/2 issued by the Tahsildar,
Pollachi, was marked as Ex.A5, which shows the clear description of the
suit property in O.S.No.275/2006. Moreover, the 1st plaintiff has taken
steps to measure the suit property by the Revenue Authorities and the
same is established by Ex. A.4 Challan/Receipt. It is not in dispute that
patta was issued in favour of the plaintiffs, after measuring the suit
property under the Natham Scheme. The same is reiterated in the written
statement filed by the Revenue Officials in O.S.No.293/2006. Till date
the defendants failed to challenge the said patta. There is nothing on
record to show that the defendants have filed petitions to the Revenue
Authorities challenging the issuance of patta in favour of the plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs have established their possession and enjoyment in the suit
property by marking Exs.A6 & A7 Tax receipt and Electricity receipt.
The Courts below rightly held that the plaintiffs are the absolute owners
of the suit properties and they are in possession and enjoyment of the
same. No infirmity or perversity found in the findings of the Courts
below which warrants any interference by this Court. In this view of the
matter, this Court is of the opinion that the second appeal did not involve
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 04:06:02 pm )
S.A.Nos.219 & 221 of 2020
any question of law much less substantial question of law within the
meaning of Section 100 of the Code, requiring interference in the
judgment and decree passed by the Courts below.
12.In the result,
i.these second appeals in S.A.Nos.219 & 221 of 2020 are
dismissed.
ii. judgment and decree dated 27.03.2019 passed in A.S. Nos.22 of
2013 & 31 of 2013 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Pollachi,
confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.06.2013 in O.S. Nos.275 &
293 of 2006 on the file of the learned District Munsif Judge, Pollachi is
upheld. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
10.10.2025
vsn
To
1. The Sub Judge, Pollachi,
2. The District Munsif Judge, Pollachi
3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 04:06:02 pm )
S.A.Nos.219 & 221 of 2020
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI,J.
vsn
Pre- delivery judgment made in
S.A.Nos.219 & 221 of 2020
C.M.P.Nos.2349 of 2022 and 5827 of 2024
10.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/10/2025 04:06:02 pm )
