Madras High Court
A.S.No.538/2016 vs Govindarajulu on 10 September, 2025
2025:MHC:2180
A.S.Nos.538 and 539 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 04.09.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 10.09.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
A.S.Nos.538 and 539 of 2016
A.S.No.538/2016:
R.Muthamilselvan ... Appellant
vs.
1.Govindarajulu
2.D.Rajappan
3.The Assistant Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Subramaniapuram,
Cuddalore Taluk,
Cuddalore District. ... Respondents
PRAYER: First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure
Code, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.04.2015 passed in
O.S.No.152 of 2011 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Gururaj
For R1 : Mr.C.Jagadish
For R3 : M/s.J.Hemalatha Gajapathy
Standing Counsel for TNEB
For R2 : No Appearance
A.S.No.539/2016:
1/26
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:53:22 pm )
A.S.Nos.538 and 539 of 2016
R.Muthamilselvan ... Appellant
vs.
Govindarajulu ... Respondent
PRAYER: First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure
Code, to allow this First Appeal and set aside the judgment and decree dated
28.04.2015 passed in O.S.No.172 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District
Judge, Cuddalore.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Gururaj
For Respondent : Mr.C.Jagadish
COMMON JUDGMENT
A.S.No.539 of 2016 is filed challenging the dismissal of the suit for
declaration and injunction filed by the appellant.
2. A.S.No.538 of 2016 is filed challenging the judgment and decree
passed in favour of 1st respondent/plaintiff seeking declaration of title,
declaration that the Settlement Deed executed by the 1st defendant in the suit
in favour of 2nd defendant was null and void, recovery of possession,
permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from alienating the
suit property and for mandatory injunction directing the 3rd defendant to
disconnect the power service connection effected in favour of the 1st
defendant in the suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:53:22 pm )
A.S.Nos.538 and 539 of 2016
3. Since the issues in these suits are inextricably mixed up with each
other, both the suits were tried together and Common Judgment was
rendered by the Trial Court. Since the appeals are connected with each other,
they are taken up together for hearing.
4. In this judgment, the expression 'appellant' refers to 'appellant' in
both the appeals, plaintiff in O.S.No.172 of 2012 and 2nd defendant in
O.S.No.152 of 2011. The expression '1st respondent' refers to 1st respondent
in A.S.No.538 of 2016, sole respondent in A.S.No.539 of 2016, plaintiff in
O.S.No.152 of 2011 and defendant in O.S.No.172 of 2012. The expression
'2nd respondent' refers to 2nd respondent in A.S.No.538 of 2016 and 1st
defendant in O.S.No.152 of 2011. The expression '3rd respondent' refers to
3rd respondent in A.S.No.538 of 2016 and 3rd defendant in O.S.No.152 of
2011.
5. The plaintiff in O.S.No.172 of 2012 (appellant in both the appeals)
filed a suit for declaration of his title and for permanent injunction
restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the property in O.S.No.307 of 2011 on the file of the District
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:53:22 pm )
A.S.Nos.538 and 539 of 2016
Munsif Court, Cuddalore. The said suit was later transferred and renumbered
as O.S.No.172 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Court, Cuddalore.
6.(i) It is the case of the appellant/plaintiff that the suit property
originally belonged to his Junior Paternal Uncle-Natarajan under a registered
Sale Deed dated 28.04.1994. He purchased the same from one Devarajulu
Naidu. Though on the date of purchase, there was a thatched house in the
suit property, the same was not mentioned in the Sale Deed. However,
Devarajulu Naidu had executed a Vardhamanam Letter in favour of
Natarajan confirming that he conveyed the thatched house and other trees in
the suit property in favour of Natarajan. It is further stated by the
appellant/plaintiff that Natarajan borrowed money from the father of 1st
defendant and deposited original Sale Deed with him in the year 2000.
Though the debt was discharged, he failed to get back the original Sale
Deed. The above mentioned Natarajan wanted to sell the property in favour
of plaintiff's father and hence, he had executed an Agreement of Sale in
favour of plaintiff's father on 25.07.1995 which was marked as Ex.B4.
6.(ii) The possession of the subject property was delivered to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:53:22 pm )
A.S.Nos.538 and 539 of 2016
appellant on the date of Sale Agreement and taking advantage of close
relationship, no Sale Deed was executed pursuant to agreement. Since the
date of agreement, the plaintiff's father enjoyed the property by residing in
the building that situated in the front portion of the suit property with an
extent of 0.07 cents and enjoying 0.50 cents of land on the back side of the
suit property by raising trees. Subsequently, about 10 years before filing of
the suit, the thatched building that stood in the suit property was converted
into a tiled house and later, electric service connection was obtained in the
name of the 2nd respondent in the year 2005. Thus, the appellant and his
predecessor-in-title have been in continuous possession and enjoyment of
the suit property for more than the statutory period and prescribed title by
adverse possession.
6.(iii) It was further stated that the 1st respondent and his father
concocted a Sale Deed in his name as if, the above mentioned Natarajan had
executed a Sale Deed in his favour. The 1st respondent based on the said Sale
Deed gave a complaint before the Inspector of Police, Land Grabbing Cell,
Cuddalore and then only the appellant had acquired knowledge about the
said Sale Deed. In these circumstances, the suit was laid seeking declaration
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:53:22 pm )
A.S.Nos.538 and 539 of 2016
of title and injunction by the appellant against the respondents.
7. The contesting 1st respondent filed a written statement and resisted
the suit by denying various allegations contained in the plaint. It was the
specific case of the 1st respondent that he purchased the suit property from
Natarajan under a registered Sale Deed dated 14.05.2001 marked as Ex.A1
and he had taken possession of the suit property on the date of sale and has
been enjoying the same as bonafide purchaser of the property for a value
without having notice of any defect in title. It was stated by the 1st
respondent that the suit property was vacant site, when he had purchased the
same. Taking advantage of the fact that the 1st respondent was residing away
from the suit property, the appellant's father-the 2nd respondent herein
committed trespass into the suit property during January-2006 and had put
up a tiled house. The 1st respondent made sincere efforts to claim back the
possession of the suit property amicably but his efforts met with a failure.
After enactment of Land Grabbing Act, the 1st respondent preferred a
complaint before the Superintendent of Police and during the course of
enquiry, the 2nd respondent produced a registered Settlement Deed executed
by him in favour of the appellant dated 22.03.2006. Then only the 1 st
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:53:22 pm )
A.S.Nos.538 and 539 of 2016
respondent acquired knowledge about the same and hence, he was
constrained to file a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession,
declaration that Settlement Deed executed by 2nd respondent in favour of the
appellant was null and void, injunction restraining the appellant and 2nd
respondent from encumbering the property and for mandatory injunction
directing the 3rd respondent to disconnect the service connection effected in
the name of the 2nd respondent herein/1st defendant in O.S.No.152 of 2011
on the file of the Principal District Court, Cuddalore. Thus, the 1st
respondent sought for dismissal of the suit.
8. In O.S.No.152 of 2011 filed by the 1st respondent herein, both the
appellant and 1st respondent reiterated their respective pleas as mentioned
above.
9. The Trial Court framed the following issues in O.S.No.152 of
2011:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree for declaration of
title over the suit property?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree for relief of
declaration that the settlement deed executed by the 1st defendant on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:53:22 pm )
A.S.Nos.538 and 539 of 2016
22.03.2006 in favour of the 2nd defendant in respect of the suit
property is null and void and not binding on the plaintiff?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree for the relief of
recovery of possession as prayed for?
(4) Whether the 1st defendant is in possession of the suit property from
25.07.1995? Is it true to say that re-conveyance of sale agreement
dated 25.07.1995 would confer title and right to the 1st defendant?
(5) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree for permanent
injunction as prayed for?
(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree for mandatory
injunction as prayed for?
(7) Whether the defendants are claiming the suit property by way of
adverse possession?
(8) To what other reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to?
10. The Trial Court framed the following issues in O.S.No.172 of
2012:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree for declaration of title
over the suit property?
(2) Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property as pleaded in
the plaint?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree for relief of
permanent injunction as prayed for?
(4) To what other reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to?
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:53:22 pm )
A.S.Nos.538 and 539 of 2016
11. Since the issues involved in both the suits are connected with each
other, as per the request made by both the parties, the Trial Court conducted
joint trial and recorded evidence in O.S.No.152 of 2011 filed by the 1st
respondent.
12. Before the Trial Court, the 1st respondent was examined as PW.1
and Scribe of Ex.A1-Sale Deed in his favour was examined as PW.2. One of
the Attestor to Ex.A1-Sale Deed was examined as PW.3. The Junior
Engineer of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board was examined as PW.4. On behalf
of the 1st respondent/plaintiff in O.S.No.152 of 2011, 9 documents were
marked as Exs.A1 to A9.
13. The 2nd respondent in A.S.No.538 of 2016 and 1st defendant in
O.S.No.152 of 2011 was examined as DW.1. One of his neighbour was
examined as DW.2. Attestor to Ex.B4-Sale Agreement in favour of the 2nd
respondent was examined as DW.3 and 4 other witnesses were examined on
behalf of the 1st defendant in O.S.No.152 of 2011 as DW.4 to DW.7. On
behalf of the defendants in O.S.No.152 of 2011, 44 documents were marked
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:53:22 pm )
A.S.Nos.538 and 539 of 2016
as Exs.B1 to B44.
14. On appreciation of evidence available on record, the Trial Court
came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to establish adverse
possession pleaded by him and the 1st respondent established his title over
the suit property. As a necessary consequence, the suit for declaration and
injunction filed by the appellant was dismissed and suit for declaration and
recovery of possession filed by the 1st respondent was decreed. The Trial
Court also held that the Settlement Deed executed by the 2nd respondent in
favour of the appellant was null and void. The appellant and 2nd respondent
were restrained from encumbering the suit property and the 3rd respondent
was directed to disconnect power connection effected in the name of the 2nd
respondent. Aggrieved by the above said judgment and decree, the appellant
has preferred these two appeals.
15. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently
contended that the appellant proved his continuous possession and
enjoyment of the suit property right from the date of Sale Agreement in
favour of his father 2nd respondent herein and hence, the Trial Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:53:22 pm )
A.S.Nos.538 and 539 of 2016
committed an error in negativing the plea of adverse possession. He further
submitted that the Sale Deed in favour of the 1st respondent was a concocted
document and the same was obtained by employing impersonation and the
said vital plea of the appellant was not taken into consideration by the Trial
Court in proper perspective. He further submitted that the Settlement Deed
in favour of the appellant will cure any defects in the title of the appellant
due to the non-execution of Sale Deed in favour of the appellant's father
pursuant to the Sale Agreement dated 25.07.1995. In support of his
contention, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied on the
following judgments:-
(i) Rajpal Singh vs. Saroj (Deceased) Thourgh LRs and another
reported in (2022) 15 SCC 260.
(ii) Collector of Bombay vs. Municipal Corporation of the city of
Bombay and others reported in AIR 1951 (SC) 469.
(iii) State of W.B., vs. The Dalhousie Institute Society reported in AIR
1970 (SC) 1778.
(iv) Kshitish Chandra Bose vs. Commissioner of Ranchi reported in
AIR 1981 (SC) 707.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:53:22 pm )
A.S.Nos.538 and 539 of 2016
(v) V.Muthiah Pillai and others vs. Vedambal and others reported in
1985-98 LW 606.
(vi) Yeshwant Deorao vs. Walchand Ramchand reported in AIR 1951
SC 16.
(vii) Kalianna Gounder (died) S/o.Komaraswami Gounder and others
vs. Kalianna Gounder S/o.Appavu Gounder and others reported in
1986 (2) MLJ 470.
16. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent
would submit that the title of 1st respondent was proved by producing
Ex.A1-registered Sale Deed in his favour. He further submitted that the Sale
Agreement in favour of appellant's father even assuming true, would not
create any interest in his favour in the absence of registered document and
therefore, the subsequent Settlement Deed executed by the appellant's father
in favour of appellant was not valid. The learned counsel for the 1st
respondent further submitted that the appellant has not proved his open and
continuous possession for more than the statutory period and therefore, the
Trial Court was justified in negativing the adverse title pleaded by the
appellant. In support of his contention, the learned counsel appearing for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:53:22 pm )
A.S.Nos.538 and 539 of 2016
1st respondent relied on the following judgments:-
(i) Ram Nagina Rai and another vs. Deo Kumar Rai (deceased) by Legal
Respresentatives and another reported in (2019) 13 SCC 324.
(ii) Narasamma and others vs. A.Krishnappa (Dead) Through Legal
Representatives reported in (2020) 15 SCC 218.
17. On perusal of the records and based on the arguments of the
learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondents, the
following points are arising for consideration in this First Appeal:-
(i) Whether the adverse title pleaded by the appellant was proved by
him?
(ii) Whether the 1st respondent established his title over suit property?
(iii) Whether the Trial Court was justified in granting consequential
relief of recovery of possession, permanent injunction and
mandatory injunction as prayed for by the 1st respondent?
Discussion on Point No.1:-
18. A close scrutiny of the pleadings as well as the records would
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:53:22 pm )
A.S.Nos.538 and 539 of 2016
establish that the suit property was originally owned by one Natarajan. The
appellant claims that his father, the 2nd respondent herein entered into Sale
Agreement with the original owner Natarajan under Ex.B4, dated
25.07.1995. It is settled law that the Sale Agreement will not create any
interest in immovable property. It is admitted case that no registered Sale
Deed was executed by original owner in favour of appellant's father pursuant
to the Sale Agreement. It is also admitted that no suit for specific
performance was filed by the Agreement Holder namely the father of the
appellant. Hence, it is clear that the appellant has no document to establish
his title over the subject property. A close scrutiny of the pleadings of the
appellant would establish that he is only claiming adverse possession.
19. The appellant claims that his father-2nd respondent herein was
inducted into possession of the suit property on 25.07.1995 under Sale
Agreement. Possession under Sale Agreement is permissive one and the
same will never become adverse as against the owner of the property. In this
regard,reference may be had to the decision of this Court in Annamalai
Chettiar and others vs. Muthiah Chettiar and others reported in
MANU/TN/0237/1964 : (1965) ILR 1Mad 254 and relevant observation
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:53:22 pm )
A.S.Nos.538 and 539 of 2016
reads as follows:-
“13. ... ... ... ... In the instant case the possession of the
Respondent was in pursuance of and under the agreement of
sale, right from the inception, and, therefore, clearly permissive
in character besides being in recognition and
acknowledgement of the title of the owner. ... ... ... ...
... ... ... ...
... ... ... ...
14. ... ... ... ... The instant case is governed by a well
settled rule of law that if a person is in actual possession and
has a right to possession under a title involving a due
recognition of the owner's title his possession will not be
regarded as adverse in law, even though he claims under
another title, having regard to the well recognised policy of law
that possession is never considered adverse if it is referable to
a lawful title. The purchaser who got into possession under an
executory contract of sale in a permissible character cannot be
heard to contend that his possession was adverse.
(Emphasis supplied by this Court)
... ... ... ...
... ... ... ...
15. ... ... ... ... In Ramachandra v. Vasant ILR (1956)
Nag. 5 it was observed as follows:
The possession of a person who has admitted the title of
the true owners must be regarded as on behalf of the true
owners and not independent or adverse to them. It follows
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:53:22 pm )
A.S.Nos.538 and 539 of 2016
that his continued possession of the property must also be
deemed to be in the same capacity unless it is established
that he, to the knowledge of the true owners, ceased to
hold possession on their behalf and assumed possession in
his own right and on his own behalf.
16. The principle is clear and there is no need to refer to
other cases on the point. In our opinion, the possession of the
purchaser which was derivative and permissive to start with,
not only never became adverse, but on the other hand the
permissive character was reaffirmed in the suit for specific
performance, with the result that there is no question of the
purchaser having acquired title by adverse possession. ... ... ...
...”
20. In the pleadings of the appellant absolutely there is no reference
about the change of character of his possession from that of Agreement
Holder (permissive possession) to hostile possession. A person, who pleads
adverse possession must specifically plead and prove the date from which
his possession turned hostile as against the real owner of the property and
his successor-in-interest.
21. In the case on hand, there is no plea by the appellant from which
date his father's possession under agreement turned hostile as against the real
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:53:22 pm )
A.S.Nos.538 and 539 of 2016
owner. The possession of the property under Sale Agreement for any length
of time will not confer adverse title to the Agreement Holder unless there are
definite overt act to establish that his permissive possession under the
agreement turned into hostile possession against the real owner. In the
pleadings, it was stated by the appellant that at the time of agreement, there
was thatched shed in the subject property and the same was converted into a
tiled house by his father 10 years prior to the filing of the suit. Even
assuming the conversion of the superstructure in the suit property or
construction of a tiled house is treated as overt act, even as per the admission
in the pleadings, it was done just 10 years prior to the filing of the suit which
is less than the statutory period of 12 years. In these circumstances, this
Court feels that there is no sufficient plea on the part of the
appellant/plaintiff in O.S.No.172 of 2012 to claim adverse possession.
22. Turning evidence available on record, the appellant has not
produced any documentary evidence to prove his adverse possession for
more than the statutory period. Exs.B5, B8 to B19 are all subsequent to the
year 2004 well within eight years prior to the date of filing of the suit. The
learned counsel for the appellant vehemently relied on Exs.B21 to B26 to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:53:22 pm )
A.S.Nos.538 and 539 of 2016
establish the possession of the appellant over the subject property even prior
to the year 2000. However, the appellant is unable to connect the said
documents with the suit property in any way. As per the plaint description,
the suit property is situated in Vazhuthalampattu Village, Kullanchavady
Sub Registry. However, Exs.B21 to B26 are communications addressed to
appellant mentioning different village name. From Exs.B21 to B26, we
cannot come to a conclusion that the appellant resided in suit property
during the relevant period. Because, the Village name differs in those
documents. Even assuming the suit village name is mentioned in those
documents, we cannot presume the appellant's possession over the subject
property when there is no reference about the street name, door number,
survey number etc.
23. Adverse possession is a plea which has to be specifically pleaded
and meticulously established by cogent evidence. In the case on hand, as
discussed earlier, the appellant failed to plead from which date or time his
possession turned hostile against the 1st respondent. As mentioned earlier,
the evidence available on record are not sufficient to establish any hostile
possession. Hence, this Court comes to a conclusion that the appellant failed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:53:22 pm )
A.S.Nos.538 and 539 of 2016
to establish adverse title to the subject property and Point for consideration
No.1 is answered against the appellant.
Discussion on Point No.2:-
24. It is admitted case of both the parties, the property originally
belonged to one Natarajan. Ex.A1, is the Sale Deed executed by said
Natarajan in favour of 1st respondent. It is a registered document and hence,
the general presumption available to the registered document weighs in
favour of the 1st respondent and Sale Deed is not a document which requires
compulsory attestation and therefore, it is not necessary for the 1 st
respondent to prove the same by calling any one of the Attestor. In the case
on hand, the Scribe of Ex.A1 was examined as PW.2 and one of the Attestor
to Ex.A1 was examined as PW.3. The learned counsel appearing for the
appellant vehemently contended that PW.3 is father of the 1st
respondent and therefore, his evidence cannot be given any weightage. It is a
common practice to get attestation from persons well acquainted with the
purchaser and therefore, merely because the father of the purchaser attested
the document, we cannot ignore the evidence of PW.3.
25. A perusal of his evidence would indicate, he clearly stated that he
attested the document as Second Attestor. He denied the suggestion that he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:53:22 pm )
A.S.Nos.538 and 539 of 2016
concocted the document with the help of Scribe, who was examined as
PW.2. A perusal of PW.2's evidence would indicate that he also deposed in
favour of 1st respondent's case and suggestion made to him by appellant
regarding alleged creation of document was denied by him specifically.
Therefore, PW.2 and PW.3, withstood the cross examination by the
appellant.
26. Further when a registered document is questioned by appellant, it
is for him to establish that said document was concocted by impersonation.
It is settled law, registration creates presumption that document is a genuine
one and the onus is on the party, who challenges the same. In this regard, I
would like to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in Prem Singh and
others vs. Birbal and others reported in (2006) 5 SCC 353. The relevant
portion of the Apex Court reads as follows:-
“13. There is a presumption that a registered document
is validly executed. A registered document, therefore, prima
facie would be valid in law. The onus of proof, thus, would be
on a person who leads evidence to rebut the presumption. In
the instant case, Respondent No.1 has not been able to rebut
the said presumption.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:53:22 pm )
A.S.Nos.538 and 539 of 2016
27. In view of the above mentioned settled position of law that
persons challenging the registered document shall lead evidence to
substantiate the plea raised by him against the registered document, in the
absence of any positive evidence on the part of the appellant to prove
impersonation pleaded by him, this Court has no hesitation in coming to the
conclusion that the 1st respondent established his title under Ex.A1.
Accordingly, the Point No.2 is answered in favour of the 1st respondent and
against the appellant.
Discussion on Point No.3:-
28. In the Points For Consideration Nos.1 and 2, this Court came to
the conclusion that the 1st respondent established title over the subject
property and the plea of adverse possession raised by the appellant was not
established. In such circumstances, the appellant is not entitled to remain in
possession of the suit property. Therefore, the 1st respondent is entitled to
decree for recovery of possession. The Trial Court rightly granted the said
relief and the same is confirmed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:53:22 pm )
A.S.Nos.538 and 539 of 2016
29. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant also submitted
that the prayer of the 1st respondent to annul the document is barred by
limitation. In support of the said contention, he relied on the decision of the
Apex Court in Rajpal Singh vs. Saroj (Deceased) Thourgh LRs and
another reported in (2022) 15 SCC 260.
30. A perusal of the pleadings would establish that the 1st respondent
specifically pleaded that he acquired knowledge about the Settlement Deed
executed in favour of the appellant only in the year 2011, after it was
produced by the appellant in an enquiry before the Land Grabbing Cell. The
1st respondent entered the box as PW.1 and deposed to that effect. There is
no contra evidence by the appellant to show that the Settlement Deed was
within the knowledge of the 1st respondent even prior to that. Therefore, the
submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that prayer for
annulment of Settlement Deed is barred by limitation is negatived and the
judgment relied on by him is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Further, this Court already came to the conclusion that the Settlor under the
Settlement Deed namely the father of the appellant had no title to convey
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:53:22 pm )
A.S.Nos.538 and 539 of 2016
under the Settlement Deed. In such circumstances, the Settlement Deed will
not convey any title to the appellant. Hence, the Trial Court is justified in
declaring the same as null and void.
31. The appellant claims that the subject property was settled by his
father under registered Settlement Deed. As discussed earlier, the appellant's
father is only a mere Agreement Holder and hence, he has no title over the
property to convey the same to the appellant. In such circumstances, the
Trial Court was justified in declaring the Settlement Deed executed by him
in favour of appellant as null and void. The appellant and the 2 nd respondent
having failed to establish the semblance of right over the subject property
are not entitled to encumber the same. Hence, the Trial Court was justified in
granting a decree for injunction restraining them from encumbering the
subject property.
32. When the title of the 1st respondent is established and it is held that
he is entitled to decree for recovery of possession, the 3rd respondent is not
justified in extending power service connection to the superstructure raised
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:53:22 pm )
A.S.Nos.538 and 539 of 2016
by father of the appellant namely the 2nd respondent herein. Therefore, the
Trial Court rightly granted mandatory injunction directing the 3rd respondent
to disconnect the same. The appellant has not made out any case to interfere
with any of the findings reached by the Trial Court and accordingly, the
Point No.3 is also answered against the appellant and in favour of the 1st
respondent.
33. In view of the conclusion reached by this Court in Point Nos.1 to
3, the present Appeals stand dismissed by confirming the judgment and
decree passed by the Trial Court in O.S.No.152 of 2011 and O.S.No.172 of
2012, dated 28.04.2015. No costs.
10.09.2025
Index :Yes
Speaking order :Yes
Neutral Citation :Yes
dm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:53:22 pm )
A.S.Nos.538 and 539 of 2016
To
1.The Principal District Judge,
Cuddalore.
2.The Assistant Engineer,
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,
Subramaniapuram,
Cuddalore Taluk,
Cuddalore District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:53:22 pm )
A.S.Nos.538 and 539 of 2016
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dm
Pre-delivery Common Judgment made in
A.S.Nos.538 and 539 of 2016
10.09.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 11/09/2025 03:53:22 pm )
