High Court · 2025

S.A.No.1224 of 2013IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 09.01.2025CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE R.N.MANJULAS.A.No.1224 of 2013andMP.No.1 of 20131.KannanS/o late Govindan2.TamilS/o.late Govindan....Appellants VsMuthu,S/o Chinnathambi....RespondentPRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C against the judgement and decree passed in A.S.No.8/2012 dated 04.08.2012 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Harur, in confirming the judgement and decree passed in O.S.No.189/2008 dated 22.09.2011 on the file of the learned 1 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1224 of 2013District Munsif, Harur. For Appellants : Mr.M.R.Jothimanian For Respondent : Mr. V.NicholasJUDGEMENT The appellants are the defendants. The plaintiff has filed a suit against the defendants for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction. The trial Court has decreed the suit. On the first appeal preferred by the defendants, the first Appellate Court dismissed the first Appeal by confirming the judgement of the trial Court. Aggrieved over that, the defendants have preferred this second Appeal. 2. The short facts pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiff are as follows:The plaintiff has purchased the suit property by a registered sale deed dated 05.02.1996 and took possession of the suit property. There is a well in the suit property and the electricity connection No.163. Except the plaintiff, no other person is having any right or possession over the suit property. The defendant attempted to trespass over the suit property and that was 2 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1224 of 2013resisted by the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff has filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. 3. The averments in the written statement filed by the first defendant adopted by the second defendant are as follows:The plaintiff never purchased the property on 05.02.1996 and he was not in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The defendants never attempted to interfere with the exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property on 11.10.2008. On the West of the suit property the defendant's suit property is situated in S.No. 52/5 in an extent of 1.23.0 hectares. The defendant along with his father had converted the land in an extent of 1 acre 50 cents and made the land fit for cultivation. The extent of 50 cents in the entire suit property is lying 3 ft. low level. There is a big ridge stone to divide 50 cents. On the Western side of the suit property, the extent of 50 cents is in possession and enjoyment of the defendants and the defendants is perfected title by adverse possession. The defendants have also filed a counter claim by stating that an extent of 50 cents in S. No.51/1 of the Western side belongs to the defendants 1 and 2 and prayed a decree for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of 3 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1224 of 2013the same. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed the following issues:"1.thjp jhthtpy; nfhhpa tpsk;g[if ghpfhuk; thjpf;F mspf;f Toajh>2.gpujpthjpfs; 50 Mz;LfSf;F nkyhf jhth brhj;Jf;fis mDgtpj;J tUtjhy; mth;fs; jhth brhj;jpy; vjpupil ghj;jpak; cs;sJ vd;w gpujpthjpfspd; Tw;W cz;ikah>3.thjp nfhhpa epue;ju cWj;Jf;fl;lis ghpfhuk; gpujpthjpfSf;F vjpuhf mspf;ff;Toajh>4.jug;gpdh;fSf;F fpilf;ff;Toa gpw ghpfhu';fs; vd;d>5. During the course of the trial, on the side of the plaintiff, three witnesses have been examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and Ex.A1 to A8 were marked. The court witness has been examined as CW.1 and four documents have been marked as Ex.X1 to X4. On the side of the defendants, four witnesses have been examined as D.W.1 to D.W.4 and Exs.B1 to B5 were marked. 4 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1224 of 20136. At the conclusion of the trial and on considering the evidence available on record, the trial Court has decreed the suit by granting the relief of declaration and permanent injunction. The First Appeal preferred by the defendants was also dismissed by the First Appellate Court by confirming the judgement and decree of the Trial Court. Aggrieved over that the defendants have preferred this Second Appeal by claiming that the suit is barred by limitation and the point of limitation has not been properly adverted by the trial Court. 7. The very case of the plaintiffs is that he has purchased the suit property in the year 1996 by virtue of a sale deed dated 05.02.1996 and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property from then onwards.The defendant specifically claims that he has been in possession of 50 cents on the western side of the suit property, which is situated 3 feet below ground level. The survey number for the suit property, as per the plaintiff, is S.No. 51/1. 8. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendant dispossessed him at any point in time, necessitating a relief of recovery of possession. 5 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1224 of 2013The defendant claims title through his own title deed. The plaintiff filed the suit due to the disturbance caused by the defendant, who denied the plaintiff's title to the suit property. The trial court rightly admitted the suit, as it was filed within three years from the date of the cause of action. Even in the written statement filed by the defendants, no plea was raised regarding the issue of limitation.9. It is the defendants who have filed a counter-claim, stating that they have been in long, uninterrupted possession of 50 cents on the western side of the suit property, to the knowledge of the plaintiff, and have perfected their title over the same. However, the defendants, while asserting a counter-claim for adverse possession, failed to specify the rightful owner against whom they allegedly perfected their title. The trial court has made a categorical finding regarding the documents produced by the defendants, holding that those documents do not pertain to the property on which the defendants claim title through adverse possession.10. As the defendant could not establish that he is in possession of 50 cents on the western side of the suit property, which is situated 3 feet 6 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1224 of 2013lower and the documents produced by the defendants do not support their claim, the courts below rightly decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff and dismissed the counterclaim filed by the defendant. Since the appellants/defendants failed to raise any substantial question of law, I do not find merit in admitting this Second Appeal for further hearing. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgement and decree dated 04.08.2012 made in A.S.No 8 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Harur is confirmed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. 09.01.2025jrsIndex: Yes/NoSpeaking: Non-Speaking OrderInternet: Yes/NoNeutral:Yes/No7 of 8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1224 of 2013R.N.MANJULA, J jrsTo1.The District Munsif Court, Harur. 2. The Sub Court, Harur.S.A.No.1224 of 2013andMP.No.1 of 201309.01.20258 of 8