Thangavel (Deceased)1.Sivanandham2.Lakshmi3.Gandhimathi v. 1.P.Murugesan2.Valambal

S.A.No.1168 of 2013Perambalur by the legal heir of the deceased plaintiff herein.2.Parties are indicated herein as per their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.3.According to the plaintiff Thangavel, the suit property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff. Plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property specifically without the interference of the defendants for the twelve years and above and he has acquired title over the suit property by adverse possession. The suit property never belongs to the defendants. It appears that the 1st defendant has purchased the suit property from the 2nd defendant in the recent past. On enquiry, he understands that in the revenue records, the name of Kandasamy, S/o.Saperumal is mistakenly entered. Even the said Kandasamy has never interfered with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The said Kandasamy died ten years before. Therefore, it is not necessary to add him as a party.3.1.Though as per revenue records, Kandasamy’s name is found, it 2/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1168 of 2013is the plaintiff who has been paying the taxes for the suit property. In such a situation, the 2nd defendant, who is no way connected with the said Kandasamy, with incorrect particulars, got her name recorded in the revenue records. Based on the incorrect revenue documents, the 2nd defendant herein has sold the suit property to the 1st defendant on 26.09.2007 and thereby created cloud upon the title of the suit property.3.2.The plaintiff caused to issue a legal notice to the defendants on 27.10.2007. On receipt of notice, the defendants sent a reply notice dated 05.11.2007 with incorrect particulars. Hence, the suit was laid for the relieves of declaration of title and for permanent injunction not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.4.Contending contra, defendant Nos.1 and 2 would contend that it is incorrect to state that the 2nd defendant has falsely obtained patta for the suit property and on that basis she has created a litigious sale deed in favour of the 1st defendant. Originally the suit property is comprised in old Adangal No.35 measuring acre 0.66 was ancestral to one Amirdha Padaiyachi and in the family arrangement (oral), the said suit property 3/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1168 of 2013was allotted to his son Kandasamy. Ever since then, the said Kandasamy had been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property with a larger extent as a rightful owner till 1961. On 10.02.1961, 2nd defendant’s father Ponnusamy purchased the suit property comprised in old Adangal No.35 measuring acre 0.66 with definite boundaries from the said Kandasamy by means of registered sale deed.4.1.Ever since the date of purchase, the said Ponnusamy, 2nd defendant’s father has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by a rising crops. After his demise, the said suit property devolved upon the 2nd defendant being the sole heir of her father. Thereafter, she has been in possession of the suit property through lessees to the knowledge of the plaintiff. In recognition of her possession and enjoyment of the suit property, she has been granted patta, besides collecting kist from her. In assertion of her absolute ownership, the 2nd defendant parted away the suit property to the 1st defendant by means of a registered sale deed dated 26.09.2007. Ever since the date of purchase, the 1st defendant has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property as absolute owner thereof. In fact the plaintiff demanded 2nd 4/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1168 of 2013defendant to sell the suit property to him for a meagre price. For which, the 2nd defendant was not agreeable. As she sold the suit property to the 1st defendant, annoyed by the same, the plaintiff issued a lawyer’s notice to the defendant.5.Based on the divergent pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial Court.1. Whether the suit property belongs to the plaintiff?2.Whether the defendants are prescribed title by adverse possession in respect of the suit property?3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration and for the permanent injunction in respect of the suit property.4.To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled to?6.At trial, to substantiate the plaint details, two witnesses were examined and twelve documents were marked. Ex.A3, Ex.A4 and Ex.A7 are the revenue records (chitta/adangal) in the name of Kandasamy S/o.Sayperumal. Ex.A11 is the A register (attested copy). On the defendants’ side, the defendants have examined themselves as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and thirteen documents were marked.5/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1168 of 20137.Ex.B1 is the sale deed dated 29.06.2007 executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant. Ex.B2 is the patta granted in the name of the 1st defendant in patta No.88. Ex.B3 is the patta pass book in the name of the 1st defendant. Ex.B5 is the sale deed dated 10.02.1961 executed by Kandasamy in favour of Ponnusamy. Ex.B8 is the patta pass book stands in the name of the 2nd defendant.8.Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence of both sides and upon hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side, the trial Court observed that the plaintiff has not proved his case through documentary evidence and the suit was dismissed.9.Aggrieved the plaintiff preferred an appeal in A.S.No.43 of 2012 before the Sub-Court, Perambalur. Upon the consideration of the trial Court records and after hearing the both sides arguments, the first appellate Court held that the plaintiff has miserably failed to establish his case to the effect that the suit property belongs to him and finally concluded that the suit property does not belong to the plaintiff and he has 6/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1168 of 2013not acquired title by adverse possession and confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court by dismissing the appeal. Against this finding, the plaintiff has preferred this Second Appeal. Subsequent to the death of the plaintiff his legal heirs are brought on record as appellants and arrayed as appellant Nos.1 to 3.10.The learned counsel for the appellants would vehemently argue that the first appellate Court by relying upon Ex.B5 has come to an incorrect conclusion. He would further contend that the first appellate Court failed to consider Ex.A8 namely a memo sent by the Tahsildar of Perambalur dated 26.06.2009. Ex.B7 is the kist receipts of the year 1970-1971 are not connected to the suit property. Ex.B5 no other title deed is marked by the defendants’ side and sought for setting aside the judgment of the first appellate Court.11.Per Contra, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants would strenuously contend that the suit is filed for the relief of declaration of title and for the permanent injunction and having pleaded in the plaint that the suit property is an ancestral property, no title deed has been filed 7/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1168 of 2013in proof of the same by the plaintiff before the trial Court. It is his further contention that the schedule of property, no boundary details are given in order to identify the property in clear terms. As the plaintiff has utterly failed to establish his case, the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court has rightly dismissed the suit and sought for dismissal of this appeal.12.To put it in a nutshall the case of the plaintiff is that the suit property is the ancestral property that belongs to him and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same for the past twelve years and above and he has prescribed by a title as adverse possession. The plaintiff has not stated in what way the ancestral property belongs to him. P.W.1 would state that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for more than twelve years and on all the four sides he has got the properties. For that he has utilized Ex.B5-sale deed dated 10.02.1961 executed by Kandasamy S/o.Amirdhan in favour of Ponnusamy S/o.Subburayan of Govindapuram and Ex.A12 is the FMBs in respect of the suit property. It is relevant to note that the plaintiff has marked Adangal Extracts. Exs.A3 and A7 Adangal Extracts stand in the 8/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1168 of 2013name of one S.Kandasamy S/o.Saperumal. Plaintiff would state that he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for the past twelve years and above but he has marked the revenue documents which stand in the name of Kandasamy S/o.Saperumal. It is not the case of the plaintiff that effective steps were taken to record his name in the revenue records.13.The suit is filed for the relief of declaration of title and for permanent injunction. Though the plaintiff has claimed that the suit property is ancestral property, in what way it is categorised as ancestral property is not explained by the plaintiff. That apart, to prove his possession no concrete evidence is let in.14.On the other hand, the defendants would claimed that the suit property was sold by Kandasamy in favour of Ponnusamy on 10.02.1961 as per Ex.B5-sale deed. A careful perusal of the said sale deed suit survey number and extent details are not found in Ex.B5. It is the case of the defendants that based on Ex.B5, the 2nd defendant namely Balambal who is the only surviving legal heir of her father Ponnusamy sold to the 1st 9/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1168 of 2013defendant as per Ex.B1-sale deed dated 26.09.2007. Ex.B2 is the patta in the name of the 1st defendant. Ex.B8 is the patta pass book in the name of 2nd defendant. As mentioned supra, when the suit survey number and extent details are not found in Ex.B5-sale deed then the subsequent documents as mentioned above need not be gone into.15.As per Order 7 Rule 3 of CPC, requires that if the subject matter of the suit is immovable property, the plaint shall contain description of the property sufficient to identify it, which would enable the Court to draw a proper decree as per Order 20 Rule 3 of CPC. The object behind the said provision is that the other party has the right to know the case to meet out the ends of justice. If the parties had understood the description of the property mentioned in the plaint then no prejudice can be said to have been caused against the defendant. The provisions of Order 7 Rule 3 are directory in nature. Based on the above said details, the written statement and the evidence of D.W.1 and D.W.2 would explicate that they had no difficulties in understanding about the subject matter of the suit.16.In consideration of the oral evidence and documents marked by 10/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1168 of 2013the plaintiffs, one can easily conclude that the plaintiff’s case is not established as per law.17.As regards the defendants, they trace out the title to the suit property based on Ex.B5. But in Ex.B5 suit Survey Number and exact extent are not found in Ex.B5. When that be the case based on Ex.B5 the trial Court has come to an incorrect conclusion which was set right by the first appellate Court. The relevant portion of the judgment of the first appellate Court is extracted hereunder.“...fPHik ePjpkd;wj;jpd; jPh;g;gpy; gp/r/M/5 y; Fwpg;gplg;gl;l go brhj;J tpguKk;. jhthr; brhj;Jld; bjhlh;g[ilajy;y vd;gjhf bjhpa tUfpwjhf fz;Ls;sjhy; nkw;brhd;d Mtz';fisa[k;. rhl;rpaj;ija[k; ghprPypf;ifapy; fPHik ePjpkd;wk; jtwhfj;jhd; ,t;thwhd xU Kot[f;F te;Js;sjhf fUjg;gLfpwJ...”18.Because of omissions on the part of the plaintiff and the fact that the law expects the plaintiff to establish his case through concrete evidence and documents, this Court is of the considered view that the 11/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1168 of 2013judgment of the first appellate Court does not warrant any interference and it does not suffer from any perversity or infirmity. No substantial question of law arises for consideration.19.Based on the abovesaid discussions and observations, this Second Appeal stands dismissed. Sequel to this judgment and decree dated 26.04.2011 made in A.S.No.43 of 2010 on the file of the Sub-Court, Perambalur stands confirmed. There is no order as to costs. 29.04.2025Index : Yes / NoInternet : Yes/ Nogbi12/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1168 of 2013To1.The Sub-Court, Perambalur.2.The District Munsiff Court, Perambalur.3. The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court of Madras, Chennai.13/14 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1168 of 2013R.KALAIMATHI, J.,gbiS.A.No.1168 of 201329.04.202514/14