High Court · 2024

S.A.No.611 of 2012IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASRESERVED ON : 04.07.2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 19.07.2024CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAMS.A.No.611 of 2012 1.Lakshmi Ammal2.Ravinathan3.Ramachandran...AppellantsVs.Sengeani...RespondentPrayer :- Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgement and Decree dated 20.09.2011 made in A.S.No.46 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tindivanam confirming the Judgment and decree dated 28.06.2007 made in O.S.No.97 of 2000 on the file of District Munsif cum Magistrate Court, Vanur. For Appellants: Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar For Respondent: Mr.N.SureshJUDGMENT1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.611 of 2012Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgement and Decree dated 20.09.2011 made in A.S.No.46 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tindivanam confirming the Judgment and decree dated 28.06.2007 made in O.S.No.97 of 2000 on the file of District Munsif cum Magistrate Court, Vanur.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the Trial Court. 3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, agents from obstructing, disturbing and entering into the suit schedule properties. Plaint suit property was originally owned by the one Pachaiyammal. The said Pachaiyammal sold the property vide Sale Deed dated 09.03.1952, Ex.A.1 to one Dhanabakkyam. From the time of the said purchase, Dhanabakyam took possession of the suit schedule property and enjoyed it, without any objection from anyone. After the death of Dhanabakyam and her husband, their son Govindarajan enjoyed the property and sold the same to the plaintiff through Sale Deed dated 07.06.1990. In pursuance of the Sale Deed dated 09.03.1952, the plaintiff and plaintiff's vendors have been enjoying the 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.611 of 2012property continuously for more than 12 years. The suit schedule property is in possession of the plaintiff. Since the defendants are adjacent land owners, they are obstructing and disturbing the plaintiff's possession over the property.4.The defendants contested the suit, denied the allegations in the plaint and filed a written statement contending that the property was originally owned by one Mannapan and his brother Varadhappan. They enjoyed the property without partition. Mannapan had two children namely Chinnapan and Pachaiyammal. Varadhappan had three children namely Kuppagounder, Narayanasamy gounder and Thirumalai gounder. They have enjoyed 22 1/2 cent commonly and without any partition. Kuppagounder had two sons Subrayan and Kannapan. Kannapan died without any partition. The defendants are the legal heirs of the said Kannapan and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Thus, pleaded to dismiss the suit. 5.On the basis of the abovesaid pleas set out by the respective parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court for consideration: /- 1/jhth brhj;ij thjp 7/6/90y; bgw;w fpiuak; rl;lg;goahf“ bry;yf;Toajh>2/jhth brhj;J gpujpthjpfSf;F thhpR Kiwapy; chpikahdjh>3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.611 of 20123/ tHf;F tpah$;$pa K:yk; ,y;yhj tifapy; ghjpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjh>4/thjpf;F fpilf;ff;Toa ,ju ghpfhu';fs; vd;d>”6. Before the Trial Court, in support of the plaintiff's case, PW 1 and PW3 were examined and 9 documents were marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9. On the side of the defendants, DW1 to DW4 were examined and 6 documents were marked as Ex.B.1 and Ex.B-6.7. Upon considering the evidence and documents, the trial Court allowed the suit and granted the prayer declaration and permanent injunction as claimed by the plaintiff. 8.Aggrieved over the same, the defendants had filed A.S.No.46 of 2007, before the Additional Sub Court, Tindivanam. The First Appellate Court, after considering the entire materials and evidence on record confirmed the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants have filed the present second appeal.9. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.611 of 2012“a) Whether both the Courts below failed to consider the fact that through Ex.A2 Sale Deed, what was conveyed was the joint family property to an extent of 1/3rd share of Govinda Gounder and hence, the plaintiff at the best will only be entitled for declaration to declare her title for the 1/3rd share in the suit property and for a preliminary decree of partition for 1/3rd share in the suit property?(b) Whether the findings of both the Courts below can be termed as perverse due to improper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record?10.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court failed to consider the fact that there was no partition between the family members of the appellants and the respondent vendor is not entitled to sell the property. The First Appellate Court failed to decide the issues independently and overlooked the fact that the joint patta has been issued in the name of the plaintiff and defendant and decreed the suit. It is erroneous and irrelevant consideration of material on the record. Without considering the evidence on record and reiterated the other grounds 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.611 of 2012raised in the grounds of appeal and thus pleaded to allow the second appeal. 11.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the judgment of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court and contended that the property was originally owned by one Pachayammal. She sold the property vide Sale Deed dated 09.03.1952 to Dhanabakkyam. After the death of Dhanabakyam and her husband, her son Govindarajan enjoyed the property and sold the same to the plaintiff on 07.06.1990 in pursuance of the Sale Deed. Therefore, the plaintiff is having title over the property and in enjoyment of the property. The defendants have no right over the property. There is no ground to interfere with the findings of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court. There is no irregularity and no substantial question of law is involved in this case and thus, pleaded to dismiss the Appeal.12.I have considered the matter in the light of the submissions made on either side and perused the materials on records as well as the Judgments passed by the Courts below.13.On persual of the evidence, it is seen that the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for the following prayer,6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.611 of 2012jhth brhj;jpy; thjpapd; chpikapid tpsk;g[if bra;a[k;“ gof;Fk;. jhth brhj;ij thjp mDgtpg;gij gpujpthjpfshtJ mtUila Ml;fshtJ. Kfth;fshtJ jila[k; ,il";ryk; bra;ahky; ,Uf;Fk; gof;Fk; jhthbrhj;jpy; gpuntrpf;fhky; ,Uf;Fk; gof;Fk; gpujpthjpfs; nghpy; epue;ju cWj;Jf;fl;lis gpwg;gpf;Fk; gof;Fk; bryt[j;bjiff;Fk; tHf;F”14.The averment in the plaint is that, the property was originally owned by one Pachaiyammal. She sold the property through Sale Deed in favour of one Dhanabakyam by way of registered Sale Deed on 09.03.1952. It is evidenced by Ex.A.1. Thereafter, the said Dhanabakyam enjoyed the property. After her death, her husband and their son Govindarajan enjoyed the property and sold it to the plaintiff by way of a Sale Deed dated 07.06.1990. It is evidenced by Ex.A.2. To controvert this evidence, no evidence is adduced by the defendants to dispute the title of the plaintiff over the plaint suit properties. 15.The defendants filed written statement and contended that the property was originally owned by one Mannapan and his brother Varadhappan. They enjoyed the property without partition. Mannapan had two children namely Chinnapan and Pachaiyammal. Varadhappan had three children namely Kuppa Gounder, Narayanasamy Gounder and Thirumalai Gounder. They have enjoyed 22 1/2 cent commonly and without any partition. Kuppagounder had 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.611 of 2012two sons Subrayan and Kannapan. Kannapan died without any partition. The defendants are the legal heirs of the said Kannapan and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. To these contentions, there is no supporting materials in favour of the defendants. The defendants failed to substantiate their contention that the property was enjoyed commonly.16.The learned counsel for the defendants relied upon the joint patta issued in the name of Lakshmi, Sengani and Sarangapaani, Ex.B.6 dated 28.04.1996. Apart from this, there is no other evidence to show that the defendants have any right over the property. In the description of property, it is mentioned as 1/3rd portion, 142 (¾) cents. This description may not be correct. On perusal of the Sale Deed dated 07.06.1990, Ex.A.2 registered in favour of the plaintiff, reflects that there is a clear extent mentioned in the Sale Deed,fpuhk ej;jk; rh;nt 122-1 5/92y; ghz;o nuhLf;F (bj) fhyzp“ nuhl;Lf;F (t) Fg;gft[z;lh; kidf;F (nk) fhj;jtuha ft[z;lh; tifauh kidf;F (fp) mjd; kj;jpapy; bjt$h mo 97 fpnk$h mo 6 3-4 ,jd; r/mo 654 3-4 ,J hP rh;nt 46-1 rk;ke;jk;/ nkw;go fpuhk ej;jk; 122-1 5/92u; ghz;onuhLf;F (bj) nkny fz;l fpiua kd;Df;F (t) (nk) fz;zg;g ft[z;lh; tifauh kidf;F (fp) ,jd; kj;jpapy; bjt$h mo 14 fpnk$h mo 11 1-2 ,jd; r/mo 161/,jd; hP rh;nt 46-1 rk;ke;jg;gl;lJ/ fpuhk ej;jk; rh;nt 122-1 5/92y; nfhtpe;j ft[z;lh; tifauh kidf;F (fp) (t) fz;zg;g ft[z;lh; tifauh kidf;F (nk) ghz;o nuhLf;F (bj) ,jd; kj;jpapy; bjt$h 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.611 of 2012mo 32 1-2 fpnk$h mo 16 1-4 ,jd; r/mo 528 1-4 ,J rh;nt 46-1 rk;ke;jg;gl;lJ/fpuhk ej;jk; rh;nt 122-1 5/92y; jpUkiy ft[z;lh; tifauh kidf;F (nk) ghz;onuhLf;F (bj) fz;zg;g ft[z;lh; tifauh kidf;F (fp) g[d;i" gl;lhkidf;F (t) ,jd; kj;jpapy; bjt$h mo 97 fpnk$h mo 7 ,jd; r/mo 679/,J hP rh;nt 46-1 rk;ke;jg;gl;lJ/ fpuhk ej;jk; rh;t122-1 5/92k; ghz;onuhLf;F (bj) fhyzp ghijf;F (fp) fhj;jtuha ft[z;lh; ghfj;Jf;F (t) nfhtpe;j ft[z;lh; kidf;F (nk) ,jpy; bjt$h mo 32 1-2 fpnk$h mo 16 1-4 ,jd; r/mo 528 1-4 ,jpy; 1-3 ghfk; r/mo 142 3-4/”17.In this, there is no mentioning about the 1/3rd portion alone. Therefore, the argument projected by the appellants' counsel that there is no partition between the parties is not an acceptable one. Further, there is no evidence to show that the defendants are having share over the plaint schedule property, except the document relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants in Ex.B.6. Ex.B.6 is not enough to hold that the plaintiff purchased undivided share from his vendor. On evidence, the plaintiff established his title and possession over the plaint schedule properties. Therefore, the trial Court and the First Appellate Court declared his title and granted injunction.9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.611 of 201218.In the light of the abovesaid factors, it is found that the First Appellate Court, on a proper appreciation of the materials placed on record, both oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the principles of law governing the same, had rightly dismissed the appeal. There is no misappreciation of evidence, irrelevant consideration and no ground to hold that the findings are perverse. There are no merits in the appeal. The substantial questions of law formulated in the second appeal are accordingly answered. 19. For the aforesaid reasons, the second appeal fails and accordingly, is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.19.07.2024gdIndex : Yes/NoInternet: Yes/NoSpeaking order/Non-Speaking orderNeutral Citation : Yes/No To1. The Additional Sub Court, Tindivanam2.The District Munsif cum Magistrate Court, Vanur.10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.611 of 2012 V.SIVAGNANAM, J.gd11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.611 of 2012Pre-Delivery Judgment made in S.A.No.611 of 201219.07.202412/12

S.A.No.611 of 2012IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASRESERVED ON : 04.07.2024 PRONOUNCED ON : 19.07.2024CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAMS.A.No.611 of 2012 1.Lakshmi Ammal2.Ravinathan3.Ramachandran...AppellantsVs.Sengeani...RespondentPrayer :- Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgement and Decree dated 20.09.2011 made in A.S.No.46 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tindivanam confirming the Judgment and decree dated 28.06.2007 made in O.S.No.97 of 2000 on the file of District Munsif cum Magistrate Court, Vanur. For Appellants: Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar For Respondent: Mr.N.SureshJUDGMENT1/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.611 of 2012Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgement and Decree dated 20.09.2011 made in A.S.No.46 of 2007 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tindivanam confirming the Judgment and decree dated 28.06.2007 made in O.S.No.97 of 2000 on the file of District Munsif cum Magistrate Court, Vanur.2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the Trial Court. 3. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men, agents from obstructing, disturbing and entering into the suit schedule properties. Plaint suit property was originally owned by the one Pachaiyammal. The said Pachaiyammal sold the property vide Sale Deed dated 09.03.1952, Ex.A.1 to one Dhanabakkyam. From the time of the said purchase, Dhanabakyam took possession of the suit schedule property and enjoyed it, without any objection from anyone. After the death of Dhanabakyam and her husband, their son Govindarajan enjoyed the property and sold the same to the plaintiff through Sale Deed dated 07.06.1990. In pursuance of the Sale Deed dated 09.03.1952, the plaintiff and plaintiff's vendors have been enjoying the 2/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.611 of 2012property continuously for more than 12 years. The suit schedule property is in possession of the plaintiff. Since the defendants are adjacent land owners, they are obstructing and disturbing the plaintiff's possession over the property.4.The defendants contested the suit, denied the allegations in the plaint and filed a written statement contending that the property was originally owned by one Mannapan and his brother Varadhappan. They enjoyed the property without partition. Mannapan had two children namely Chinnapan and Pachaiyammal. Varadhappan had three children namely Kuppagounder, Narayanasamy gounder and Thirumalai gounder. They have enjoyed 22 1/2 cent commonly and without any partition. Kuppagounder had two sons Subrayan and Kannapan. Kannapan died without any partition. The defendants are the legal heirs of the said Kannapan and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Thus, pleaded to dismiss the suit. 5.On the basis of the abovesaid pleas set out by the respective parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court for consideration: /- 1/jhth brhj;ij thjp 7/6/90y; bgw;w fpiuak; rl;lg;goahf“ bry;yf;Toajh>2/jhth brhj;J gpujpthjpfSf;F thhpR Kiwapy; chpikahdjh>3/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.611 of 20123/ tHf;F tpah$;$pa K:yk; ,y;yhj tifapy; ghjpf;fg;gl;Ls;sjh>4/thjpf;F fpilf;ff;Toa ,ju ghpfhu';fs; vd;d>”6. Before the Trial Court, in support of the plaintiff's case, PW 1 and PW3 were examined and 9 documents were marked as Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.9. On the side of the defendants, DW1 to DW4 were examined and 6 documents were marked as Ex.B.1 and Ex.B-6.7. Upon considering the evidence and documents, the trial Court allowed the suit and granted the prayer declaration and permanent injunction as claimed by the plaintiff. 8.Aggrieved over the same, the defendants had filed A.S.No.46 of 2007, before the Additional Sub Court, Tindivanam. The First Appellate Court, after considering the entire materials and evidence on record confirmed the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants have filed the present second appeal.9. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:4/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.611 of 2012“a) Whether both the Courts below failed to consider the fact that through Ex.A2 Sale Deed, what was conveyed was the joint family property to an extent of 1/3rd share of Govinda Gounder and hence, the plaintiff at the best will only be entitled for declaration to declare her title for the 1/3rd share in the suit property and for a preliminary decree of partition for 1/3rd share in the suit property?(b) Whether the findings of both the Courts below can be termed as perverse due to improper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record?10.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the trial Court and the First Appellate Court failed to consider the fact that there was no partition between the family members of the appellants and the respondent vendor is not entitled to sell the property. The First Appellate Court failed to decide the issues independently and overlooked the fact that the joint patta has been issued in the name of the plaintiff and defendant and decreed the suit. It is erroneous and irrelevant consideration of material on the record. Without considering the evidence on record and reiterated the other grounds 5/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.611 of 2012raised in the grounds of appeal and thus pleaded to allow the second appeal. 11.The learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the judgment of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court and contended that the property was originally owned by one Pachayammal. She sold the property vide Sale Deed dated 09.03.1952 to Dhanabakkyam. After the death of Dhanabakyam and her husband, her son Govindarajan enjoyed the property and sold the same to the plaintiff on 07.06.1990 in pursuance of the Sale Deed. Therefore, the plaintiff is having title over the property and in enjoyment of the property. The defendants have no right over the property. There is no ground to interfere with the findings of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court. There is no irregularity and no substantial question of law is involved in this case and thus, pleaded to dismiss the Appeal.12.I have considered the matter in the light of the submissions made on either side and perused the materials on records as well as the Judgments passed by the Courts below.13.On persual of the evidence, it is seen that the respondent/plaintiff filed the suit against the defendants for the following prayer,6/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.611 of 2012jhth brhj;jpy; thjpapd; chpikapid tpsk;g[if bra;a[k;“ gof;Fk;. jhth brhj;ij thjp mDgtpg;gij gpujpthjpfshtJ mtUila Ml;fshtJ. Kfth;fshtJ jila[k; ,il";ryk; bra;ahky; ,Uf;Fk; gof;Fk; jhthbrhj;jpy; gpuntrpf;fhky; ,Uf;Fk; gof;Fk; gpujpthjpfs; nghpy; epue;ju cWj;Jf;fl;lis gpwg;gpf;Fk; gof;Fk; bryt[j;bjiff;Fk; tHf;F”14.The averment in the plaint is that, the property was originally owned by one Pachaiyammal. She sold the property through Sale Deed in favour of one Dhanabakyam by way of registered Sale Deed on 09.03.1952. It is evidenced by Ex.A.1. Thereafter, the said Dhanabakyam enjoyed the property. After her death, her husband and their son Govindarajan enjoyed the property and sold it to the plaintiff by way of a Sale Deed dated 07.06.1990. It is evidenced by Ex.A.2. To controvert this evidence, no evidence is adduced by the defendants to dispute the title of the plaintiff over the plaint suit properties. 15.The defendants filed written statement and contended that the property was originally owned by one Mannapan and his brother Varadhappan. They enjoyed the property without partition. Mannapan had two children namely Chinnapan and Pachaiyammal. Varadhappan had three children namely Kuppa Gounder, Narayanasamy Gounder and Thirumalai Gounder. They have enjoyed 22 1/2 cent commonly and without any partition. Kuppagounder had 7/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.611 of 2012two sons Subrayan and Kannapan. Kannapan died without any partition. The defendants are the legal heirs of the said Kannapan and they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. To these contentions, there is no supporting materials in favour of the defendants. The defendants failed to substantiate their contention that the property was enjoyed commonly.16.The learned counsel for the defendants relied upon the joint patta issued in the name of Lakshmi, Sengani and Sarangapaani, Ex.B.6 dated 28.04.1996. Apart from this, there is no other evidence to show that the defendants have any right over the property. In the description of property, it is mentioned as 1/3rd portion, 142 (¾) cents. This description may not be correct. On perusal of the Sale Deed dated 07.06.1990, Ex.A.2 registered in favour of the plaintiff, reflects that there is a clear extent mentioned in the Sale Deed,fpuhk ej;jk; rh;nt 122-1 5/92y; ghz;o nuhLf;F (bj) fhyzp“ nuhl;Lf;F (t) Fg;gft[z;lh; kidf;F (nk) fhj;jtuha ft[z;lh; tifauh kidf;F (fp) mjd; kj;jpapy; bjt$h mo 97 fpnk$h mo 6 3-4 ,jd; r/mo 654 3-4 ,J hP rh;nt 46-1 rk;ke;jk;/ nkw;go fpuhk ej;jk; 122-1 5/92u; ghz;onuhLf;F (bj) nkny fz;l fpiua kd;Df;F (t) (nk) fz;zg;g ft[z;lh; tifauh kidf;F (fp) ,jd; kj;jpapy; bjt$h mo 14 fpnk$h mo 11 1-2 ,jd; r/mo 161/,jd; hP rh;nt 46-1 rk;ke;jg;gl;lJ/ fpuhk ej;jk; rh;nt 122-1 5/92y; nfhtpe;j ft[z;lh; tifauh kidf;F (fp) (t) fz;zg;g ft[z;lh; tifauh kidf;F (nk) ghz;o nuhLf;F (bj) ,jd; kj;jpapy; bjt$h 8/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.611 of 2012mo 32 1-2 fpnk$h mo 16 1-4 ,jd; r/mo 528 1-4 ,J rh;nt 46-1 rk;ke;jg;gl;lJ/fpuhk ej;jk; rh;nt 122-1 5/92y; jpUkiy ft[z;lh; tifauh kidf;F (nk) ghz;onuhLf;F (bj) fz;zg;g ft[z;lh; tifauh kidf;F (fp) g[d;i" gl;lhkidf;F (t) ,jd; kj;jpapy; bjt$h mo 97 fpnk$h mo 7 ,jd; r/mo 679/,J hP rh;nt 46-1 rk;ke;jg;gl;lJ/ fpuhk ej;jk; rh;t122-1 5/92k; ghz;onuhLf;F (bj) fhyzp ghijf;F (fp) fhj;jtuha ft[z;lh; ghfj;Jf;F (t) nfhtpe;j ft[z;lh; kidf;F (nk) ,jpy; bjt$h mo 32 1-2 fpnk$h mo 16 1-4 ,jd; r/mo 528 1-4 ,jpy; 1-3 ghfk; r/mo 142 3-4/”17.In this, there is no mentioning about the 1/3rd portion alone. Therefore, the argument projected by the appellants' counsel that there is no partition between the parties is not an acceptable one. Further, there is no evidence to show that the defendants are having share over the plaint schedule property, except the document relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants in Ex.B.6. Ex.B.6 is not enough to hold that the plaintiff purchased undivided share from his vendor. On evidence, the plaintiff established his title and possession over the plaint schedule properties. Therefore, the trial Court and the First Appellate Court declared his title and granted injunction.9/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.611 of 201218.In the light of the abovesaid factors, it is found that the First Appellate Court, on a proper appreciation of the materials placed on record, both oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the principles of law governing the same, had rightly dismissed the appeal. There is no misappreciation of evidence, irrelevant consideration and no ground to hold that the findings are perverse. There are no merits in the appeal. The substantial questions of law formulated in the second appeal are accordingly answered. 19. For the aforesaid reasons, the second appeal fails and accordingly, is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.19.07.2024gdIndex : Yes/NoInternet: Yes/NoSpeaking order/Non-Speaking orderNeutral Citation : Yes/No To1. The Additional Sub Court, Tindivanam2.The District Munsif cum Magistrate Court, Vanur.10/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.611 of 2012 V.SIVAGNANAM, J.gd11/12 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.611 of 2012Pre-Delivery Judgment made in S.A.No.611 of 201219.07.202412/12