[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Kamala vs Janaki on 12 January, 2026
S.A.No.531 of 2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 22.10.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 12.01.2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.D. MARIA CLETE
S.A. No.531 of 2014
and MP No.1 of 2014
Kamala
W/o.Lakshmanan
Kundalmaduvu Village,
Sitheri Post,
Pappireddipatti Taluk,
Dharmapuri District. ...Appellant
Versus
Janaki
W/o.Chinnaiyan
Citylink Village and Post
Harur Taluk,
Dharmapuri District. ... Respondent
PRAYER in S.A.:
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code against the judgment and decree dated 20.02.2014 in A.S.No.36 of
2013 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Harur reversing the judgment and
decree dated 03.08.2012 in O.S.No.83 of 2011 on the file of the District
Munsif, Gingee.
1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 08:13:38 pm )
S.A.No.531 of 2014
APPEARANCE OF PARTIES:
For Appellant : M/s.T.Dhanasekaran
For Respondent : Mr.T.Murugamanickam
Senior Counsel for
M/s.Zeenath Begum
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal filed by the appellant/defendant arises out of
the decree dated 20.02.2014 in A.S.No.36 of 2013 on the file of the
Subordinate Judge, Harur, reversing the judgment and decree dated
03.08.2012 in O.S.No.83 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsif Court,
Harur. The suit is one for declaration of title and permanent injunction.
2. For the sake of convenience parties are referred to by their ranks
as stood before the trial court.
3. The plaintiff and the defendant are sisters. The plaintiff claims
title to the suit properties namely Survey No.14/3 (Punjai – 1.88 acres),
Survey No.18/2 (Punjai – 2.94 acres), and Survey No.18/6 (Punjai – 0.79
acres), together with a well and a thatched dwelling house, situate in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 08:13:38 pm )
Malai Thangi Village. Her claim is founded on Government
assignment/D-card records, issued in her name viz., Ex.A1, relating to
Survey No.18/2 for an extent of 2.94 acres with theervai Rs.0–91, and
Ex.A2, relating to Survey No.14/3 (1.88 acres, theervai Rs.0–59) and
Survey No.18/6 (1.68 acres, theervai Rs.0–25), under which she asserts
exclusive title and possession. According to the plaintiff, the defendant,
after repeatedly requesting her to sell a portion of the suit properties and
failing, approached the revenue authorities and obtained patta in her
favour without the plaintiff’s knowledge or consent, taking advantage of
the plaintiff’s illiteracy. The plaintiff’s further case is that, without any
lawful divestment of her assignment rights, the defendant procured
mutation of patta and began asserting rights over portions of the suit
lands, and that on 20.05.2011 the defendant attempted to interfere with
her possession by ploughing the lands, which was resisted with the help
of villagers.
4. In support of his enjoyment pursuant to the said assignments, the
plaintiff produced Ex.A3, being a record of land ownership bearing Patta
No. 84, relating to the suit survey numbers, namely: Survey No. 14/3
(punjai) with an extent of 1.88 acres and theervai fixed at 0.59; Survey
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 08:13:38 pm )
No. 18/2 (punjai) with an extent of 2.94 acres and theervai fixed at 0.91;
and Survey No. 18/6 with an extent of 0.80 acres and theervai fixed at
0.25.
5. The plaintiff further produced kist receipts, namely Ex.A4 for
Fasli year 1388, Ex.A5 for Fasli year 1389, Ex.A6 for Fasli year 1392,
Ex.A7 for Fasli year 1393, Ex.A8 for Fasli year 1394, and Ex.A9 for
Fasli year 1395, being receipts of the mid-1980s culminating in the year
1986, evidencing payment of land revenue consistent with the theervai
fixed under the assignments.
6. The plaintiff contends that the UDR patta dated 24.05.2011
issued in favour of the defendant is illegal and void, and that when she
approached the revenue authorities seeking cancellation of the same, she
was informed that such relief could be granted only pursuant to a decree
of a competent civil court, necessitating the present suit for declaration of
title and permanent injunction.
7. The appellant/defendant, while admitting the relationship
between the parties as sisters and not disputing that the original
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 08:13:38 pm )
Government assignments under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 stood in the plaintiff’s
name, denies the plaintiff’s claim of exclusive title and possession.
According to the defendant, the father of the parties, Ramasamy, had
taken possession of the lands several decades prior to the suit, cleared and
developed them, and brought them under cultivation when both the
plaintiff and the defendant were minors, and the family as a whole was in
enjoyment of the properties. It is the defendant’s case that the D-Card
pattas were obtained in the plaintiff’s name only because she was the
major daughter at the relevant time and that such issuance did not confer
exclusive ownership on the plaintiff. The defendant further pleads that
after she attained majority , in the year 1982 an oral partition was effected
by their father in the presence of villagers of the suit properties and other
properties amongst all the family members including his brothers Selvam,
Krishnan, Velayudham, pursuant to which specific portions of the
assigned lands fell to her share, and that such allotment was acted upon
and came to be reflected in the revenue records.
8. The defendant asserts that from the date of such partition she has
been in exclusive cultivation and enjoyment of the portions allotted to
her, that she constructed a well and obtained electricity service
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 08:13:38 pm )
connection, that separate pattas were issued in her name in respect of
Survey No.14/3C (0.47.5 acres), Survey No.18/2A (0.22.5 acres), and
Survey No.19/1A (0.18.0 acres), and that the survey numbers mentioned
in the plaint are incorrect in view of such subdivisions.
9. In support of this plea, the defendant relies primarily on Ex.B1
patta No 31 dated 25.2.1986 being a patta issued in respect of Survey No.
14/3C with an extent of 0.47.50 ares and theervai of 0.35; Survey No.
18/2A with an extent of 0.22.50 ares and theervai of 0.20; and Survey No.
19/1A with an extent of 0.16.00 ares and theervai of 0.10, aggregating to
a total extent of 0.86.00 ares with theervai fixed at 0.65.
10. Ex.B2 is a computerized version of Ex B1 Patta No. 31,
relating to said Survey numbers with slightly differing extent such as
Survey No. 14/3C with an extent of 47.50 ares and theervai of 0.33;
Survey No. 18/2A with an extent of 22.80 ares and theervai of 0.17; and
Survey No. 19/1A with an extent of 18.00 ares and theervai of 0.14, the
total extent being 88.00 ares with theervai of 0.64.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 08:13:38 pm )
11. The defendant further marked a series of kist receipts, namely:
Ex.B7 dated 06.02.1988 for Patta No. 37; Ex.B8 dated 23.01.1990;
Ex.B11 dated 05.01.1992; Ex.B9 dated 22.02.1994; Ex.B13 dated
02.01.1996; Ex.B12 dated 01.02.1997; Ex.B10 dated 10.03.1998; Ex.B14
dated 22.01.2000; Ex.B15 dated 09.01.2001; Ex.B6 dated 15.02.2002;
Ex.B16 dated 13.02.2003; Ex.B17 dated 04.03.2008; Ex.B18 dated
05.03.2011; and Ex.B19 relating to Fasli year 1402.
Ex.B3 is a computerized patta bearing Patta No. 28 standing in the name
of the plaintiff, relating to Survey No. 14/B with an extent of 23.00 ares
and theervai of 0.20; Survey No. 18/2B with an extent of 20.50 ares and
theervai of 0.16; and Survey No. 19/1B with an extent of 57.00 ares and
theervai of 0.41.
12. Ex.B4 is a computerized patta bearing Patta No. 162 standing
in the names of Kumar, son of Velayutham, and Senthil, son of
Velayutham, relating to Survey No. 14/3A with an extent of 5.50 ares and
theervai of 0.06, and Survey No. 19/1C with an extent of 89.50 ares and
theervai of 0.69, the total extent being 95.00 ares with theervai fixed at
0.75.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 08:13:38 pm )
13. Contending that it is the plaintiff who is attempting to interfere
with her lawful possession and enjoyment, the defendant seeks dismissal
of the suit.
14. The trial Court, upon consideration of the pleadings, oral
evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and DWs.1 to 3, and the documentary evidence
marked as Exs.A1 to A9 and Exs.B1 to B21, found that the plaintiff’s
claim of ownership was based on the D-Card assignment dated
22.05.1970, supported by Exs.A1 and A2, and the land title deed of the
year 1974 (Ex.A3), along with kist receipts evidencing payment of land
revenue prior to 1986. However, the Court noted that the evidence of
PWs.2 and 3 did not materially strengthen the plaintiff’s case on
exclusive possession. On the defendant’s side, the trial Court found that
Patta No.31, issued in the defendant’s name in the year 1986 (Ex.B1),
covered subdivided extents in Survey Nos.14/3C, 18/2A and 19/1A, and
that the defendant had produced subsequent revenue records and kist
receipts evidencing payment of land revenue in respect of those extents.
The Court accepted the defendant’s plea that the original survey numbers
had been subdivided and that, pursuant to a family partition, the
defendant was in independent possession of the portions covered under
Patta No.31, a fact which was supported by the testimony of DW-3, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 08:13:38 pm )
maternal uncle of the parties. The trial Court further held that the
defendant was in possession only of the extents covered under her patta,
while the plaintiff continued to hold other portions, and that the plaintiff,
despite alleging fraud in the issuance of patta to the defendant, had not
taken steps to have the same cancelled. In view of the evidence relating to
subdivision, possession, and patta standing in the defendant’s name, the
trial Court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to establish entitlement
to declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the entire suit
properties as claimed, and accordingly dismissed the suit, directing the
parties to bear their own costs.
15. The first appellate Court, on a reappraisal of the entire
documentary evidence, found that the suit lands stood surveyed in the
year 1970 and that Government D-Card pattas had been issued in favour
of the plaintiff under Exs.A1 and A2, covering Survey Nos.18/2, 14/3 and
18/6 for the respective extents shown therein. It noticed that the plaintiff’s
title was further supported by the land title deed of the year 1974 (Ex.A3)
and by a series of kist receipts (Exs.A4 to A9) evidencing payment of
land revenue by the plaintiff pursuant to such assignments. The appellate
Court recorded a clear finding that the original Patta No.84 stood in the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 08:13:38 pm )
plaintiff’s name and that she had been discharging the revenue liability
attached to the said patta. It further found that Patta No.31, issued in the
defendant’s name on 25.02.1986 (Ex.B1), related to the very same survey
numbers and was the result of a mutation effected by the Revenue
Department. On examining Exs.B2 to B5 and the subsequent kist receipts
produced by the defendant, the appellate Court held that no material had
been placed to show that the transfer from Patta No.84 to Patta No.31 was
preceded by compliance with the mandatory statutory procedure, namely
issuance of notice to the existing pattadar, calling for objections, or
obtaining consent. The Court specifically noted the absence of any
affidavit or lawful explanation as to how a subsisting patta in the
plaintiff’s name was divested, despite her continued payment of revenue.
The appellate Court therefore concluded that the alteration of patta in
favour of the defendant had been effected without prior notice to the
plaintiff and contrary to the procedure governing patta transfer and survey
administration, and that such unilateral mutation could not defeat the
plaintiff’s subsisting rights flowing from Government assignment. On
these findings, the first appellate Court held that the patta issued in favour
of the defendant was legally unsustainable and that the plaintiff was
entitled to declaration of her rights and consequential relief, and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 08:13:38 pm )
accordingly reversed the judgment of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the
Judgment , defendant preferred this second appeal.
16. The Second appeal was admitted on 30.4.2014 on the following
substantial questions of law which is extracted verbatim here below:
1. While reversing the decision of the trial court is not the lower
appellate court bound to consider each and every one of the points
considered and decided by the trial court and in the absence of the case is
not the judgment vitiated?
2. In the absence of challenging the change of patta which took
place as early as in 1982 for nearly over two decades is the lower
appellate court correct in holding that transfer of patta was invalid?
3. Is the lower appellate court correct and justified in upholding
plaintiff’s title even without considering the plea that there was partition
in the family and by virtue of partition in the family and by virtue of
partition property was allotted to defendant which formed basis for
change or patta in 1982?
17. The plaintiff claims title to three items of properties measuring
a total extent of 5 acres and 61 cents, comprised in S.No.14/3 (1.88
acres), S.No.18/2 (2.94 acres), and S.No.18/6 (0.79 acres). In support of
her claim, she relied upon D-pattas marked as Exs.A1 and A2 dated
22.05.1970 and 20.06.1970, respectively, and the patta passbook for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 08:13:38 pm )
year 1974 relating to Patta No.84. Under Ex. A3, the suit schedule
properties are recorded to the extent claimed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff
also produced kist receipts relating to Patta No.84 for the years 1979,
1980, and 1983 to 1986.
18. The suit came to be filed in the year 2011. However, the
plaintiff did not produce any document relating to the suit properties
subsequent to the year 1986. Further, although Patta No.28 dated
06.06.2011 stood in her name, the plaintiff failed/suppressed to produce
the same before the trial court.
19. On the defendant’s side, Patta No.28 dated 06.06.2011 was
produced and marked as Ex.B3. A perusal of Ex. B3 shows that
S.No.14/3 was subdivided as S.No.14/3B and S.No.18/2 as S.No.18/2B,
with extents shown as 0.57 cents and 0.51 cents, respectively. S.No.18/6
is not found in this patta. The plaintiff did not explain under what
circumstances Patta No.28 came to be issued in her name after
subdivision of the first and second items of the suit properties.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 08:13:38 pm )
20. Further, Patta No.162, standing in the names of the plaintiff’s
brother’s sons Kumar and Senthil, was marked as Ex. B4 dated
06.06.2011, wherein S.No.14/3A is mentioned. Patta No.45, standing in
the name of the plaintiff’s brother Krishnan, was marked as Ex. B5 dated
06.06.2011, in which S.No.18/2D is mentioned.
21. The patta standing in the name of the defendant was marked as
Ex. B1 dated 25.02.1986, wherein the suit item properties were shown as
S.No.14/3C and S.No.18/2A after subdivision. The defendant also
produced kist receipts relating to Patta No.31, marked as Exs.B7 to B19,
evidencing payment up to the year 2011.
22. The subdivisions reflected in the above documents clearly
indicate that mutation of revenue records had taken place in respect of the
suit properties and other properties among the children of Ramasamy, the
father of the plaintiff and the defendant.
23. The defendant’s case is that although the D-patta was issued in
the name, of plaintiff, the suit properties and other lands measuring a total
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 08:13:38 pm )
extent of 15 acres were in possession of her father and family members.
According to her, even during the lifetime of her father, there was an oral
partition among his children, and under the said partition, the suit
properties were allotted to her and the defendant. In pursuance of the said
oral partition, revenue records were mutated and Patta No.28 was issued
in favour of the plaintiff and Patta No.31 in favour of the defendant in the
year 1986. The defendant’s plea of partition among the children of
Ramasamy, which fact was admitted by P.W.2 in his evidence.
24. The plaintiff, however, failed to give any satisfactory
explanation as to why the mutation of revenue records was effected as
early as 1986. Her contention that the patta was wrongly issued in the
defendant’s name during the UDR Scheme, and that she came to know of
the same only on 20.05.2011, when the defendant attempted to trespass
into the property, is not convincing. The plaintiff’s plea that she became
aware of the mutation effected in the year 1986 only in the year 2011
nearly after a quarter century is highly improbable.
25. Further, while alleging that Patta No.31 standing in the
defendant’s name was wrongly issued during the UDR Scheme, the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 08:13:38 pm )
plaintiff offered no explanation for the subsequent subdivisions and
issuance of Patta Nos.28, 45, and 162 in the names of herself, her brother,
and her brother’s sons, respectively.
26. The records reveal that, as on the date of filing of the suit, the
plaintiff was not in exclusive possession of the entire extent mentioned in
the plaint schedule. At best, she could have been in possession only to the
extent covered under Patta No.28. As on the date of the suit, Patta No.84
was no longer in existence, and consequently, no kist had been paid
thereunder. The lands covered by Patta No.84 had already been
subdivided and assigned separate pattas bearing Nos.28, 31, 45, and 162.
27. Though Exs.A1 to A3 stands in the name of the plaintiff,
evidence adduced by the parties shows that plaintiff’s father, and other
siblings were once in possession of the suit properties, after the oral
partition of the year 1982, the properties stood subdivided. Taking
advantage of the old revenue records standing in her name, the plaintiff
sought declaration and injunction for the entire extent of properties, while
suppressing the existence of her current Patta No.28. Consequently, the
plaintiff failed to prove exclusive title and possession as on the date of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 08:13:38 pm )
plaint.
28. The lower appellate court, without considering these vital aspects
discussed by the trial court, reversed the judgment. The appellate court
ignored the mutation effected in the year 1986, erroneously holding that
pattas issued more than two decades earlier were invalid, and failed to
consider the plea of partition raised by the defendant. Further, the
appellate court overlooked the fact that pattas stood in the names of the
plaintiff, the defendant, the plaintiff’s brother, and the plaintiff’s brother’s
sons, and nevertheless concluded that the plaintiff was in possession of
the entire suit property as on the date of the suit. Such a finding is
unsustainable.
29. Accordingly, the substantial questions of law are answered
against the plaintiff.
30. In the result, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate
court in A.S.No.36 of 2013 dated 20.02.2014 are set aside, and the
judgment and decree of the trial court in O.S.No.83 of 2011 dated
03.08.2012 are restored. Consequently, O.S.No.83 of 2011 stands
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 08:13:38 pm )
dismissed. The Second Appeal is allowed. Considering the close
relationship between the parties, there shall be no order as to costs.
Connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.
12.01.2026
dpq
Index:Yes/No
Speaking Order /Non-speaking order
Neutral citation:Yes/No
To
1.The learned Subordinate Judge,
Harur.
2. The District Munsif Court,
Gingee.
3. The Section Officer,
V.R.Records, Madras High Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 08:13:38 pm )
DR. A.D. MARIA CLETE, J
dpq
Pre-Delivery Judgment in
12.01.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 08:13:38 pm )
