Madrasdated High Court · 2025

Post, Panruti Taluk.3.Kalia PerumalS/o Ayyakannu, Marungur Vilalge And Post, Panruti Taluk.Appellant(s)Vs1. S.MurugavelS/o Shanmugham, Marungur Vilalge And Post, Panruti Taluk.Respondent(s)SA No. 545 of 2010PRAYER in SA No. 545 of 2010This second appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgement and decree dated 12.08.2009 passed in AS.No.18 of 2005 on the file of the learned subordinate Judge of Panruti confirming the judgement and decree dated 18.01.2005 passed in OS.No.582 of 1996 on the file of the learned District Munsif of Panruti.PRAYER in SA No. 546 of 2010This second appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgement and decree dated 12.08.2009 passed in AS.No.20 of 2005 on the file of the learned subordinate Judge of Panruti confirming the judgement and decree dated 18.01.2005 passed in OS.No.09/1997 on the file of the learned District Munsif of Panruti. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis For Appellant(s):Mr S.Kingston Jerold For PlaintiffFor Respondent(s):Mr.R.Sunilkumar For R1 Mr. A. Anandan ,GA For R2COMMON ORDERThe appellant is the plaintiff in OS.No. 582 of 1996 and the 3rd defendant in OS.No.9 of 1997.2. The suit in OS.No.582 of 1996 has been filed by the plaintiff, who is the appellant herein, seeking the relief of declaration of title over the 'B' schedule property, with the property belonging to the plaintiff, and a consequential permanent injunction restraining the first defendant from trespassing into the B schedule property and mandatory injunction directing the 2nd defendant to correct the entries in the “A” register for the Survey No. 35/1 and 35/2 as per the measurements given in the newly filed measurement book. The other suit has been filed by the 1st defendant in OS.No. 9/1997 for seeking the relief of declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the same property but different survey numbers, 151/1, in respect of the suit properties.3. Both the suits have been tried jointly, and the trial court has passed the common judgement by dismissing the suit in OS. No. 582/1996 and by decreeing the OS. No. 9/1997. Aggrieved over that, the present appellant has filed two first appeals in A.S.No. 18 and 20 of 2025. Both the first appeals got https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis dismissed by confirming the judgement of the trial court. Now aggrieved over that, the appellant has preferred these two second appeals in S.A. Nos. 546 and 547 of 2010 by challenging the common judgement of the first Appellate Court.4. A short fact pleaded by the appellant in OS.No. 582/1996:The suit property is situated in Old S.No. 151/5, new S.No. 35/2, situated at Marungoor Village, Panruti Taluk. The measurements given for the suit 'A' schedule property in the old Field Measurements MAP and new Field Measurements MAP are correct. Even though the plaintiff has been in enjoyment of 1.08 acres in old S.No. 151/5 [new S.No. 35/2] in the 'A' register, it has been wrongly mentioned as 0.98 acres instead of 1.08 acres.4.1. The plaintiff and his brothers, namely Rajavel and Ramasamy, were enjoying the entire extent of 1.08 acres comprised within its measurements given for old survey number 151/5, corresponding to 0.43.5 hectares in new S.No.35/2. The plaintiff is entitled to a 1/3 share of the said property, and it was given to him on the eastern side in a partition between himself and his brothers. The plaintiff's 1/3 share has been described as 'B' schedule property.4.2. The plaintiff has filed a rough sketch. It is not drawn roughly; it shows the measurements of all sides of A schedule property. As per the measurements given in the plaint plan, the plaintiff and his family were in enjoyment, and after partition, the plaintiff is in possession of the eastern side of 36 cents. As the defendants also accept the above contention of the plaintiff, the plaintiff has not chosen to implead them as parties to the suit. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4.3.The first defendant, who is the northern adjoining owner of the entire extent of the 'A' schedule property and who is the owner of an extent of 1 acre 89 cents in old survey No. 151/1, has been given entries in the 'A' register to the larger extent. Instead of entering the 1st defendant's enjoyment as 0.765 hectares, it has been wrongly entered as 0.780 hectares. Taking advantage of the same, the 1st defendant is making false claims over the suit property and tried to put up a stone wall on the south of point 'B' on the schedule property. The plaintiff has planted teak wood trees on the side of ridges of the property. The 1st defendant is allowed to put up a new survey stone towards the south of point 'B' in the plaintiff's property, which would not minimise the distance of 122 links between B and F without any basis and that will enable the 1st defendant to make a false claim not only in the B schedule property but also in the plaintiff's teak wood trees in the future. Hence, the plaintiff has filed this suit for claiming the relief of declaration in respect of title over the B schedule property, as he is the owner, and consequential permanent injunction and mandatory injunction against the 2nd respondent to correct the entries in the A register accordingly.5.The written statement of the 1st defendant, in brief:The property in old S.No.151/5 originally belonged to one Govinda Padayatchi. Before the resurvey, the plaintiff's brother, namely Rajavellu, purchased the old survey number of suit property No. 151/5 from the above-said Govinda Padayatchi under a registered sale deed in which the extent has been shown as only 0.98 cents. In the resurvey the excess extent has been wrongly https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis recorded in the name of the plaintiff's brother, Rajavelu, by the revenue authority. The part of the old survey No. 151/5 is now the new survey No. 35/2 with an extent of 0.410 hectares only. He is calculating the excess extent over the defendant's property. The defendant has his property on the northern side of the suit property in survey No. 35/1 with an extent of 1 acre 96 cents. The defendant measured the suit property with the help of the Taluk Surveyor and laid boundary stones on four boundaries. But the plaintiff has removed the boundary stone on the southern side of the defendant's property. It is for the defendant, who has raised teak wood trees on the southern side which are 6 years old. As the plaintiff has filed a vexatious suit, the suit is liable to be dismissed.6. The short facts of the written statement filed by the 2nd defendant are as follows:The allegation that the plaintiff has an enjoyment of an excessive extent than what was purchased by him is not correct. There is no cause of action as against this defendant. During the resurvey, notices have been served upon the plaintiff, and he has not raised any objection. Now he is making a false and belated claim, and hence, the suit should be dismissed.7. The 1st respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit in OS.No.9/97 by making the very same contentions but by claiming the relief of declaration in respect of 1 acre 96 cents in two survey numbers, 151/1 (1 acre 86 cents) and 142/2 (0.67 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis cents), and the new survey No.35/1 [0.765 hectares]. The 3rd defendant in OS.No. 9/1997 is the plaintiff in OS.No. 582/1996, and he also made the very same contentions in his claim and filed his written statement for OS.No. 9/1997.8. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial court has framed the following issues:"1.jhth brhj;Jf;fs; Fwpj;J V gjpntl;oy; jtwhf“” fzf;fplg;gl;ljhf thjp brhy;tJ rhpah>2.jhth gp ,d brhj;jpy; thjpf;F vjphpil mDgtKk;“” fpilj;Jtpl;ljhf brhy;tJ rhpah>3.thjpapd; rnfhjuh; giHa rh;nt vz;.151_5 -y; 0.98 Vf;fh; th';fpdhh; vd;Wk;. MtuJ Jhz;Ljypd; nghpy; kD rh;ntapy; 1.08 Vf;fh; vd;W jtwhf khw;wg;gl;lJ vd;Wk; 1k; gpujpthjp brhy;tJ rhpah>4.thjpjhd; 1k; gpujpthjpapd; chpikia kWjspf;fpwhh; vd;gJ rhpah>5.thjpf;F tHf;fpy; nfhhpa[s;sgo ghpfhuk; fpilf;fToajh>6.thjpf;F fpilf;ff;Toa ghpfhuk; vd;d>14.06.99 y; tidag;gl;l vGtpdhf;fs;:1.jhth brhj;J thjpf;F ghf;fpakhdjh>2.thjpf;F ePz;ldnghf chpik fpilj;jjh>3.thjpf;F tHf;Fiuapy; nfl;Ls;s ghpfhu';fs; fpilf;ff;Toajh>4.thjpf;F fpilf;ff;Toa ghpfhuk; vd;d>nkw;go K.t.582/96 tHf;fpy; 14.07.98-Yk;. kPz;Lk; 14.06.99Yk; tidag;gl;l vGtpdhf;fs; chpikapay; tprhud Kiwr;rl;lk; fl;lis 14 tpjp 5 d; go fPH;fz;lthW khw;wpikf;fg;gLfpd;wJ.1.tHf;F gp ml;ltid brhj;J thjpf;F ghf;fpakhdjh>“”2. tHf;F gp ml;ltid brhjjpy; thjpf;F vjpupil mDgt“” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ghj;jpak; fpilj;Js;sjh>3.thjp tHf;Fiuapy; nfl;Ls;s tpsk;g[if epue;ju cWj;Jf;fl;lis kw;Wk; braYj;Jf;fl;lis ghpfhu';fs; bgw jFjpahdth;jhdh>4.thjpf;F fpilf;fToa ghpfhu';fs; vd;d>"9. In view of the joint trial held by the trial court on the side of the plaintiff, two witnesses have been examined as PW.1 and PW.2, and exhibits Ex.A1 to A12 were marked. On the side of the defendant, four witnesses have been examined as DW.1 to DW.4 and Ex.B1 to B8, and the commissioner plan and sketch have been marked as Ex.C1 and C2.10. In the joint trial, the evidence has been let in OS.No.582 of 1996. After the conclusion of the trial and considering the materials available on record, the trial court has decreed the suit in OS.No.9/1997 and dismissed the suit in OS.No.582/1996. Both the first appeals preferred by this appellant in A.S.Nos. 18 & 19 of 2025 also got dismissed by confirming the judgement of the Trial Court. Aggrieved over that, two seconds appeals have been preferred.11.The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that even though the plaintiff has executed a sale deed in respect of the suit property, it only mentions 0.98 acres. They have been in enjoyment of 1.08 acres [0.43.5 hectares]. The contention of the plaintiff is that during the resurvey the defendant, the adjacent owner of the northern side, had been given with the benefit of getting entries in the ‘A’ register in respect of more extent than his enjoyment. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

12. The learned counsel for the respondent/1stdefendant submitted that the sale deed of the respondent/1st defendant is only at an earlier point of time than the plaintiff from the entries in the A register and has been rightly made, taking into account of the title deeds and the actual enjoyment. He further submitted that the plaintiff cannot claim that he has a right over a larger extent of the property than the extent actually purchased by him. There is no error in the entries made in the ‘A’ register.13. The fact that the suit property was originally owned by the appellant/plaintiff does not have any quarrel with the extent mentioned in this sale deed as well as the sale deed of the 1st respondent/1stdefendant. His only contention is that on ground he has been in enjoyment of 10 cents in excess of what he has purchased; in other words, he has claimed that though he has purchased 98 cents, he has been in enjoyment of 1 acre and 8 cents. And the A register entries have not been made in accordance with the enjoyment of the plaintiff. When there is no quarrel with respect to the title deeds of the parties, then the burden would be largely sitting on the shoulders of the appellant/plaintiff that he had been in enjoyment of 10 cents in excess of his title deed, and that is very much available on the ground.14. The above contention of the appellant/plaintiff has not been supported by the government defendant, namely the District Collector, the 2nd defendant herein. In fact, the appellant/plaintiff has claimed that himself and his brothers have been in enjoyment of 1 acre 08 cents in old S.No.151/5 and New S.No. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 35/2 , and that, pursuant to a partition entered into among them, an extent of 0.3 cents was allotted to his share. Admittedly there is no subdivision in respect of 36 cents as claimed by the appellant/plaintiff. Even though the partition deed has been produced to show that it has the description of 1 acre 08 cents and that it has been divided between the three brothers equally, and thus they have got 36 cents each. Even if there is any partition deed available to show the same, that cannot be considered as relevant unless the original title deeds of the appellant/plaintiff and his brothers substantiate the same.15. It will be admitted in the case of the appellant/plaintiff that he has purchased only 98 cents. It is also admitted by him that the defendant had purchased 1 acre and 98 cents and got it subdivided and during subdivision the 1st respondent/1stdefendant had been given a patta for an extent of 0.780 hectares, which is equivalent to 1.96 acres. The sale deed in favour of the brother of the plaintiff has been obtained only for 98 cents in S.No.151/5, and the resurvey number allotted to the 1st respondent's property is for an extent of 0.78.0 hectares in S.No.31/5. The above allotment has also been made only in accordance with the title deed of the 1st respondent/1st defendant and about which the appellant/plaintiff did not have any dispute.16. As per the contention of the Government 2nd respondent / 2nd defendant, the survey has been done and the survey stones have been found to be rightly placed in accordance with the title of the parties. The patta stands in the name of the 1st respondent/1st defendant in Pata No. 312 for a specific measurement of 0.780 hectares, which tallies with the extent of the property https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis mentioned in the sale deed. It is claimed by the appellant/plaintiff that he had planted the teak wood trees on the borders of the suit property. The 1st respondent/1stdefendant also claimed that those teak wood trees had been planted by him and not by the appellant/plaintiff. Even if it is presumed that it was the appellant/plaintiff who had planted the teak wood trees on the border and if those trees are found to be planted at a place beyond the extent of the entitlement of the plaintiff, the plaintiff cannot claim any rights over the same.17. The records do not prove that the plaintiff and his brothers are in enjoyment of 0.435 hectares in S.No.35/2, equivalent to 1 acre 08 cents, the appellant/plaintiff cannot expect the revenue authorities to make an entry in respect of a larger extent, and that too by reducing the extent of the enjoyment of the 1st respondent/1st defendant in accordance with his respective sale deed.18. The holistic appraisal of the evidence by both the trial court and the first appellate court, in my considered opinion, does not suffer from any factual or legal infirmities. The Advocate Commissioner, who inspected the suit property, has also filed his report indicating that the boundary stones were placed in accordance with the proper measurements, which tallies with the respective sale deeds of the parties. The appellant/plaintiff, without impleading his own brothers, who are said to be the joint owners of the suit ‘A’ schedule property, has instituted the present proceedings. Though the claim of entitlement is restricted to 36 cents as described in the ‘B’ schedule property, such entitlement can arise only if the appellant/plaintiff establishes that he and his brothers together are entitled to 1.08 acres. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

19. Neither the title deeds nor the revenue records relied upon by the appellant/plaintiff support or tally with the claim made by him. The appellant/plaintiff has set up a novel claim over an extent of property for which he holds no title deed. I find that no question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises for consideration in these second appeals.Accordingly, the second appeals stand dismissed. The common judgment of the trial court, dismissing O.S. No. 582 of 1996 and decreeing O.S. No. 9 of 1997, is hereby upheld. No costs.06-10-2025jrsIndex:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesNeutral Citation:Yes/No https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis To1.The subordinate Judge, Panruti 2. The District Munsif, Panruti.3. The Collector, Cuddalore District. 4. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis R.N.MANJULA J.jrsSA No. 545 of 2010AND SA NO. 546 OF 201006-10-2025