Madras High Court
S/O.Late G.Kasi Gounder vs K.Murugan (Deceased) on 25 October, 2025
S.A.No.381 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 15.09.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 25.10.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
S.A. No. 381 of 2014
Kasi Gounder (Died)
1.Maya
W/o.Late G.Kasi Gounder
2.K.Jotheeswaran,
S/o.Late G.Kasi Gounder
3.Baby Ramani,
W/o.C.Sekar,
D/o.Late G.Kasi Gounder,
Musaravakkam Village
Kancheepuram Taluk.
4.K.Karunakaran
S/o.Late G.Kasi Gounder
5.Padmavathy,
W/o.G.Sankar,
S/o.Late G.Kasi Gounder
Poigai,
Santhapettai.
6.K.Nandhakumar
S/o.Late G.Kasi Gounder
7.K.Dhanasekar,
1/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 06:32:39 pm )
S.A.No.381 of 2014
S/o.Late G.Kasi Gounder
8.K.Kanimozhi,
D/o.Late G.Kasi Gounder
Appellants 1,2,4,6,7 & 8 are residing at
Periya Ramanathapuram Village,
Vinnampalli PO, Katpadi Taluk,
Vellore District. ...Appellants
Versus
1.K.Murugan (Deceased),
S/o.Kannappa Naicker,
Musaravakkam Village,
Kancheepuram Taluk.
2.M.Koteeswari,
W/o.K.Murugan
3.M.Shanmugasundaram,
S/o.K.Murugan,
R2 & R3 are residing at No.314,
North Street,
Musaravakkam Village & Post,
Kancheepuram Taluk & District.
4.P.Maragathavalli,
W/o.S.Perumal,
No.126, Periyakarumbur Village,
Vellyur Post, Kancheepuram Taluk & District.
5.M.Navaneetahm,
W/o.P.Sivakumar,
No.20, State Bank Colony,
Little Kancheepuram.
6.M.Balasundaram,
S/o.K.Murugan,
2/12
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 06:32:39 pm )
S.A.No.381 of 2014
No.314, North Street,
Musaravakkam Village,
Kancheepuram Taluk & District.
(Respondents 2 to 6 brought on record as Lrs
of the deceased sole respondent vide order of
Court dated 01.09.2016 made in C.M.P.No.13836
of 2016 in S.A.No.381 of 2014) ...Respondents
PRAYER:
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code to call for the records A.S.No.80 of 2011 dated 28.11.2013 on the
file of Subordinate Court, Kancheepuram confirming the Judgment and
Decree passed in O.S.No.575 of 2005 dated 19.12.2007 on the file of the
Principal District Munsif Court, Kancheepuram, by allowing this Second
Appeal and pass such further or other orders as this Court may be deem
fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:
For Appellants : Ms.M.Srividhya, Mr.S.Bharath Kumar,
Ms.D.Kalaiselvi, Advocates.
For Respondents : R1 – Died.
Mr.A.S.Narasimhan for R2 to R6.
JUDGMENT
Heard.
2.This Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant in O.S. No.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 06:32:39 pm )
575 of 2004, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court,
Kancheepuram, challenging the concurrent judgments and decrees
rendered by the Courts below, namely, in A.S. No. 80 of 2011 on the file
of the Sub Court, Kancheepuram.
3.In this appeal, the Defendant before the Trial Court is the
appellant, and the second plaintiff is the respondent. For the sake of
convenience, the parties will be referred to in the same rank as they stood
in the Trial Court.
4.The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs seeking recovery of
possession of the suit property from the defendant, after removal of any
superstructure, if present and mesne profits. During the pendency of the
suit, the first plaintiff died, and her son was impleaded as the second
plaintiff. The suit property originally belonged to one Bakkiammal, who,
under a registered Will dated 31.08.1964 (Exhibit A2), bequeathed the
A-Schedule property to her son, Chinnakkannu Naicker, and the B-
Schedule property to her daughter, the first plaintiff, for her lifetime,
with the remainder vested in her son, the present second plaintiff.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 06:32:39 pm )
5.According to the plaintiffs, Chinnakkannu Naicker, taking
advantage of the first plaintiff’s advanced age and the absence of the
second plaintiff, executed a sale deed dated 16.10.2002 (Exhibit B1) in
favour of the defendant, despite having no right or authority to do so.
The plaintiffs contend that the said alienation is void, and that the
defendant unlawfully took possession of the property in November 2002.
6.The defendant contested the suit, asserting that Chinnakkannu
Naicker was the absolute owner of the property, that the Will had not
been duly proved, and that the defendant and his predecessors had been
in continuous possession for more than the statutory period, thereby
perfecting title by adverse possession.
7.The Trial Court, upon consideration of the oral and documentary
evidence (Exhibits A1 to A15, B1 to B10, and C1 & C2), held that the
Will dated 31.08.1964 had already been proved in the earlier suit, O.S.
No. 678 of 1985, between the same parties, in which Chinnakkannu
Naicker was the contesting defendant and the Will was upheld. The said
finding was subsequently affirmed in A.S. No. 4 of 1991. Consequently,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 06:32:39 pm )
the Will did not require reproof in the present proceedings. The Trial
Court further held that the suit property formed part of the B-Schedule
bequest and that, therefore, Chinnakkannu Naicker had no alienable right
over it. The sale deed (Exhibit B1) was held not binding on the plaintiffs,
and the plea of adverse possession was negatived. Accordingly, the suit
was decreed as prayed for.
8.The suit property is also covered under the Will marked as
Exhibit A2. Consequently, the defendant’s vendor had no alienable right
to convey the suit property. As a result, the sale deed standing in the
name of the defendant is not binding upon the plaintiff. Furthermore, the
vendor of the defendant is not a necessary party to the present suit, since
the validity of the Will has already been established as against him.
9.Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the
defendant preferred A.S. No. 80 of 2011 before the Sub Court,
Kancheepuram. The First Appellate Court, upon a reappraisal of the
entire evidence on record, concurred with the findings of the Trial Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 06:32:39 pm )
and dismissed the appeal. The Appellate Court found that the Will
executed by Bakkiyammal had been validly proved, that the plaintiffs
had established both title and possession, and that the sale deed in favour
of the defendant conferred no right or interest. It further observed that the
plea of adverse possession was inconsistent with the plea of title and, in
any event, was not substantiated by the facts.
10.This Second Appeal has been filed by the defendant. Upon
perusal of the memorandum of second appeal, it is evident that no ground
has been raised which even remotely discloses the existence of a
substantial question of law. The memorandum of appeal merely
reiterates, verbatim, the factual contentions already considered and
rejected by both the Courts below.
11.Upon admission of this second appeal on 23.11.2022, this court
formulated the following substantial questions of law which are
reproduced verbatim as below:
“1.Whether the plaintiffs have proved their right over the suit
property through Bhagiammal when there are material
contradictions in respect of her death in statement of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 06:32:39 pm )
plaintiffs?
2.Whether the patta relied upon by the plaintiffs can be said
to have proved the title in the absence of any evidence in
respect of the New survey number?”
12.The said questions were framed suo motu at the time of
admission, though they do not, in substance, constitute substantial
questions of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
13.On a careful consideration of the judgments of both the Courts
below and the evidence on record, it is evident that the entire controversy
turns upon questions of fact — namely, possession, proof of the Will,
and validity of the alienation — all of which have been concurrently
determined by the Courts below on the basis of the evidence. The finding
that the Will dated 31.08.1964 was duly proved in the earlier
proceedings, and that it binds the present defendant who claims under
Chinnakkannu Naicker, is purely a question of fact supported by the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 06:32:39 pm )
record. The plea regarding discrepancies in the date of death of the
testatrix or in the survey numbers are factual in nature and were neither
specifically pleaded nor substantiated so as to affect the title.
14.The grounds urged in this Second Appeal do not raise any
question of law but merely attempt to reopen concurrent findings based
on appreciation of evidence. The patta entries relied upon by the
defendant do not, as rightly held by both the Courts below, confer title.
There is no perversity or misapplication of law in the concurrent findings
that would warrant interference under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure.
15.It is well settled that under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, the jurisdiction of this Court is confined to substantial
questions of law arising from the pleadings and findings of the Courts
below. Since the memorandum of appeal discloses no such question, the
mere framing of issues at the time of admission cannot confer
jurisdiction where none exists. The findings of the Courts below are
firmly supported by evidence and rest on a proper appreciation of both
oral and documentary materials.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 06:32:39 pm )
16.Accordingly, this Court holds that the substantial questions of
law framed at the time of admission are merely academic and do not
survive for consideration. No substantial question of law arises either
from the pleadings or from the concurrent judgments of the Courts
below.
17.In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion
that the concurrent judgments of the Trial Court and the First Appellate
Court are well-founded and legally sustainable. Both the substantial
questions of law are answered against the appellant/defendant.
Accordingly, the Second Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. The
judgments and decrees of the Courts below are hereby confirmed.
25.10.2025
ay
Index: Yes / No
Speaking Order / Non-speaking Order
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 06:32:39 pm )
1.The Principal District Munsif Court,
Kancheepuram.
2.The Sub-ordinate Court,
Kancheepuram.
3.The Section Officer,
V.R.Section,
High Court of Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 06:32:39 pm )
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
ay
25.10.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/10/2025 06:32:39 pm )
