Madrasdated High Court · 2025

SA No. 161 of 20108.RANGANAYAKIW/o Annamalai Kiramani At Valathy Village Gingeetk Villupuram Dist9.MANICKAMS/o Palani Korapattan At Valathy Village Gingee tk Villupuram Dist10.ANANDANS/o Korapattan At Valathy Village Gingee tk Villupuram Dist11.ARUMUGHAAMS/o Dhanabal Naicker At Valathy Village Gingee tk Villupuram Dist12.PERUMALS/o Guirusamy Maistri At Valathy Village Gingee tk Villupuram Dist13.ETTIAMMALW/o Chinnathambi Naicker At Valathy Village Gingee tk Villupuram Dist..Appellant(s) /Defendants 1 to 10, 12,14,16Vs1.Ramamurthy (died)S/o Chinnambi Gounder At Valathy Village Gingeetk Villupuram Dist2.Natarasan (died)S/o Chinnambi Gounder At Valathy Village Gingeetk Villupuram Dist__________Page 2 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 161 of 20103.VEERARAGHAVANS/o Kanna Gounder At Valathy Village Gingeetk Villupuram Dist4.BABUS/o Kanna Gounder At Valathy Village Gingeetk Villupuram Dist 5.PANCHAMMURTHYS/o Narayanan At Valathy Village Gingeetk Villupuram Dist6.PATTAMMALW/o Gurusamy Maistri At Valathy Village Gingeetk Villupuram Dist7.PAVUNAMMALD/o Gurusamy Maistri At Valathy Village Gingeetk Villupuram Dist8.MURTHYS/o Chinnathambi Naicker At Valathy Village Gingeetk Villupuram Dist9.LAKSHMI W/o.Ramamoorthy,No.64, mariamman Koil Street, Maanur Village, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District10.PARTHASARATHY S/o.Ramamoorthy,No.3/55, Mariamman Kovil Street, Salavathi Mel Pettai Post, Tindivanam 60430711.PARAMASIVAM S/o.Ramamoorthy,No.2/2, Veppan Salai Street, Tindivanam 604301__________Page 3 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 161 of 201012.PRAKASH s/o Ramamoorthy,No.83, Lakshmi Nagar, Aarampakkam village, Padappai village and post -601 301, Kundrathur taluk, Kanhipuram district(R1 DIED, RR9 TO 12 ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD AS LRS OF DECEASED R1, VIDE ORDER OF COURT DATED 12/03/2024 MADE IN CMP.NOS.5409,5411,5415,5418,5419 AND 5422/2023 IN SA.NO.161/2010)13.KANAGA w/o Natarajan,No.27, Tharathamman Kovil street, Valathi post- 604208, Melaiyunur Taluk, Villupuram District14.KOMATHI w/o Natarajan,No.27, Tharathamman Kovil street, Valathi post- 604208, Melaiyunur Taluk, Villupuram District15.SARAVANA BABU w/o Natarajan,No.27, Tharathamman Kovil street, Valathi post- 604208, Melaiyunur Taluk, Villupuram District16.PADMANABHAN w/o Natarajan, No.27, Tharathamman Kovil street, Valathi post- 604208, Melaiyunur Taluk, Villupuram District( R2 DIED, RR13 TO 16 ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD AS LRS OF DECEASED R2, VIDE ORDER OF COURT DATED 12/03/2024 MADE IN CMP.NOS.5409,5411,5415,5418,5419 AND 5422/2023 IN SA.NO.161/2010)17.The District Collector Of Villupuram,__________Page 4 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 161 of 2010Villupuram.18.The Revenue Tahsildar,Melmalayanur Taluk, Melmalayanur Taluk, Villupuram District. (RR17 and 18 are impleaded as party respondents vide court order dated 31/07/2025 made in cmp.no.9069 of 2024 in S.A.No.161 of 2010)..Respondent(s)PRAYER : Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2009 made in A.S.No.4 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Gingee, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2007 made in O.S.No.415 of 1998 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Gingee.For Appellants : For Respondent(s):Mr.R.AgileshMR K. MOHAMMED HYDHER ALI FOR MR P. DINESH KUMAR FOR R9 TO R16Mr.A.Anandan, GA for R17 & R18R1 & R2 died; R3 to R8 -No appearance __________Page 5 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 161 of 2010JUDGMENTThis Second Appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2009 made in A.S.No.4 of 2008 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Gingee, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2007 made in O.S.No.415 of 1998 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Gingee.2. The suit has been filed by the plaintiffs for mandatory injunction and recovery of possession. The Trial Court has decreed the suit as prayed. In the First Appeal preferred by the defendants, the First Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court by dismissing the First Appeal. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants 1 to 10, 12,14 and 16 have preferred this Second Appeal. As the property is said to be belonging to the Government, the Government respondents have also been impleaded as respondents 17 and 18 subsequently.3. The short facts pleaded in the plaint are as follows:The suit item No.1 in S.No.151/2 measuring 27 cents and the suit item No.2 in S.No.149/1 measuring 1 acre had been in enjoyment of the plaintiffs and their predecessors. In fact, the plaintiffs have already filed a suit in __________Page 6 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 161 of 2010O.S.No.1918 of 1973 for permanent injunction to protect their possession and the same has been decreed in favour of the plaintiffs on 18.08.1976. The Appeal filed challenging the above decree of the Trial Court has also been dismissed. As the defendants did not respect the decree granted in favour of the plaintiffs, an Execution Petition has been filed for contempt, but the said Petition was dismissed. The said order was challenged by way of filing CRP.No.2194 of 1987 and that was disposed by stating that the above Petition can be dealt by the Executing Court itself. As the defendants did not give any trouble thereafter, no further action has been taken by the plaintiffs. Once again, the defendants had started to create disturbance to the plaintiffs' possession over the suit property by putting thatched shed, the plaintiffs have filed a suit for recovery of possession and mandatory injunction. 4. The averments made in the written statement of the defendants are as follows: All the defendants are not parties to the earlier suit in O.S.No.1918 of 1973. The above suit has been filed by the plaintiffs' predecessor only against some of the defendants. The suit property is a poramboke property and in the earlier suit, the plaintiffs did not implead the Government as a party to the proceedings. The defendants were in enjoyment of the suit property from the year 1972 by constructing a thatched shed over the same. The Trial Court had decreed the suit by getting convinced with the plaintiffs' possession over the suit __________Page 7 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 161 of 2010property and that the defendants had caused disturbance to their peaceful possession. Even the Appellate Court had also confirmed the same. Now, the appellants who are the defendants 1 to 10, 12,14,16 have submitted that the plaintiffs have not impleaded the necessary party viz., the Government and the earlier decree obtained by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1918 of 1973 has been passed in respect of Poramboke properties. As all the defendants are not parties to the earlier proceedings, the judgment of the earlier suit in O.S.No.1918 of 1973 cannot be considered as barred by the principles of res judicata. Even the plaintiffs did not deny the fact that the suit property belonged to the Government and it is a poramboke property.5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues:1/ tHf;F brhj;Jf;fs; thjpfSf;F ghj;jpakhdjh“>2/ tHf;F tpsk;g[if ghpfhuk; nfhuhj njhc&j;jhy; ghjpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjh>3/ tHf;F c/tp/K/rl;lk; gphp[t[ 11 d;go ghjpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjh>4/ tHf;F brhj;J tpguk; rhpjhdh>5/ thjp jhth brhj;Jf;Fhpath;fisa[k; kw;w chpa jug;gpdh;fshf nrh;f;fhj njhc&j;jhy; ghjpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjh>6/ K/t/vz;/1918-1973 Twg;gl;l jPh;g;g[ gpujpthjpfis fl;Lg;gLj;jhjh>7/ thjpfSf;F tHf;fpy; nfhhpathW bray; cWj;Jf;fl;lisa[k;. xg;g[jy; bgwt[k; mUfija[ilatuh>__________Page 8 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 161 of 20108/ thjpfSf;F ntW vd;d ghpfhuk; fpilf;Fk;>”6. At the conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court has decreed the suit as prayed. In the First Appeal preferred by the defendants, the First Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment of the Trial Court by dismissing the First Appeal. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants 1 to 10, 12,14,16 have preferred this Second Appeal by raising the following substantial questions of law:“(a) Whether the Lower Courts correct and justified in decreeing the suit, such cases are squarely applied to this case (Section 11 Explanation VI of C.P.C.)?(b) Whether the Lower Courts below correct and justified in decreeing the suit when the property belongs to Government Poramboke?(c ) Whether the Lower Courts correct in decreeing the suit?(d) Are the Courts below correct in decreeing the suit when the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties viz., Government and Village Panchayath?”7. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 17 & 18 has submitted that the suit property belongs to the Government. But there is no specific denial to the fact that the suit property is in the enjoyment of the plaintiffs. Neither the Government nor any private parties has filed any suit subsequently to declare that the decree rendered in O.S.No.1918 of 1973 as null __________Page 9 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 161 of 2010and void. Since the original owner / Government is not a party to O.S.No.1918 of 1973, the decree passed in the same will not bind the Government. However, the decree passed in the earlier suit could decide who can have a better possession. Admittedly, the only grievance of the appellants is that the plaintiffs cannot have a right of title or enjoyment in the property belonging to the Government. 8. As stated already, the relief of injunction or declaration obtained by the plaintiffs in the earlier suit will bind every other person except the true owner, the Government. If any new person comes each time and disturbs the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property basing upon the said cause of action, the plaintiffs might need to file another suit for seeking the relief of permanent injunction. 9. In the instant case, the cause of action that has been pleaded by the plaintiffs is that the appellants without having any manner of right, started to disturb their possession over the suit property by putting up some construction. Some of the defendants in the suit were parties to the earlier suit filed by the plaintiffs in O.S.No.1918 of 1973 also. As the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property is settled and evidenced through the judgment and decree of the Court, if any one claims to have a better possession than the plaintiffs, ought to have proved that at any point of time subsequent to the earlier decree obtained in O.S.No.1918 of 1973, the plaintiffs have been dispossessed and __________Page 10 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 161 of 2010thereafter, any of the defendants had taken possession. Admittedly, that was not the stand of the any of the defendants and their only contention is that they have been in occupation of the suit property from the year 1972. 10. The suit has been filed in the year 1973 and the possession of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property has been accepted and on that basis, a decree has been obtained. In such circumstances, the appellants' contention they had been in possession of the suit property from the year 1972 cannot be accepted. Both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court have already dealt the matter and granted the decree in favour of the plaintiffs to protect their interest over the suit property as against the defendants. 11. It is stated that the decree so obtained by the plaintiffs can be enforceable only against the private defendants and not the Government respondents who have been impleaded now. As the Government is the original owner of the suit property, it is at the discretion of the Government to initiate any action either to approve the possession of the respective parties over the poramboke land by granting patta or to initiate any other proceedings. As the appellants / defendants have not proved to be the persons having better interest of possession over the suit property, but they have caused disturbance to the settled possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property, both the Courts below have rightly granted and confirmed the relief as prayed by the plaintiffs. In the __________Page 11 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 161 of 2010above circumstances, I do not find that the appellants have made any ground in order to grant any relief as prayed by them. 12. In the result, this Second Appeal is rejected. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 12-11-2025Index: Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderNeutral Citation: Yes/NoGSK__________Page 12 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 161 of 2010To1.Ramamurthy (died)S/o Chinnambi Gounder At Valathy Village Gingeetk Villupuram Dist2.Natarasan (died)S/o Chinnambi Gounder At Valathy Village Gingeetk Villupuram Dist3.VEERARAGHAVANS/o Kanna Gounder At Valathy Village Gingeetk Villupuram Dist4.BABUS/o Kanna Gounder At Valathy Village Gingeetk Villupuram Dist5.PANCHAMMURTHYS/o Narayanan At Valathy Village Gingeetk Villupuram Dist6.PATTAMMALW/o Gurusamy Maistri At Valathy Village Gingeetk Villupuram Dist7.PAVUNAMMALD/o Gurusamy Maistri At Valathy Village Gingeetk Villupuram Dist8.MURTHYS/o Chinnathambi Naicker At Valathy Village Gingeetk Villupuram Dist__________Page 13 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 161 of 20109.LAKSHMI W/o.Ramamoorthy,No.64, mariamman Koil Street, Maanur Village, Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District10.PARTHASARATHY S/o.Ramamoorthy,No.3/55, Mariamman Kovil Street, Salavathi Mel Pettai Post, Tindivanam 60430711.PARAMASIVAM S/o.Ramamoorthy,No.2/2, Veppan Salai Street, Tindivanam 60430112.PRAKASH s/o Ramamoorthy,No.83, Lakshmi Nagar, Aarampakkam village, Padappai village and post -601 301, Kundrathur taluk, Kanhipuram district13.KANAGA w/o Natarajan,No.27, Tharathamman Kovil street, Valathi post- 604208, Melaiyunur Taluk, Villupuram District14.KOMATHI w/o Natarajan,No.27, Tharathamman Kovil street, Valathi post- 604208, Melaiyunur Taluk, Villupuram District15.SARAVANA BABU w/o Natarajan,No.27, Tharathamman Kovil street, Valathi post- 604208, Melaiyunur Taluk, Villupuram District__________Page 14 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 161 of 201016.PADMANABHAN w/o Natarajan, No.27, Tharathamman Kovil street, Valathi post- 604208, Melaiyunur Taluk, Villupuram District17.The District Collector Of Villupuram,Villupuram18.The Revenue Tahsildar,Melmalayanur Taluk, Melmalayanur Taluk, Villupuram District.__________Page 15 of 16 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA No. 161 of 2010DR.R.N.MANJULA, J.GSKSA No. 161 of 2010 andCMP.No.17867 of 2021 andCMP.No.28187 of 2025 andM.P.No.1 of 201012-11-2025__________Page 16 of 16