High Court · 2025

S.A.No.894 of 2023IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 07.08.2025 CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHIS.A.No.894 of 2023A.Sampath ...Appellant / Plaintiff Vs.1. Anjapuli2. Navaneedham3. Murugesan4. Raju5. Vijayan6. Mohanraj ...Respondents / DefendantsPRAYER:- This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2022 made in A.S.No.21 of 2021 on the file of Principal Sub Judge, Puducherry confirming the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2019 made in O.S.No.678 of 2018 on the file of the II-Additional District Munsif, Puducherry by allowing the above Second Appeal.For Appellant :Mr.K.S.Ilangovan JUDGMENTThis Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2022 made in A.S.No.21 of 2021 by the 1/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.894 of 2023Principal Subordinate Court, Pondicherry.2. Parties are indicated herein as per their litigative status and ranking before the Trial Court.3.1. According to the plaintiff, he purchased agricultural land in the name of his father (D1) and also purchased residential plots in the name of his father and mother (D1 and D2) who have no rights of actual ownership. He incurred liabilities of huge sums of money to an extent of Rs.22,00,000/- by way of borrowing loans from known persons and other sources. He raised a pucca terraced house upon the free-plot measuring about 1300 sq.ft., of his father (D1) with his consent and with a condition that his father / D1 would transfer the property rights exclusively in the name of the plaintiff with the permission of the Government Authorities. He along with his wife so as to promote the educational institutions and knowledge of the downtrodden children, especially Aadhi Dravida children, formed “Education Outreach Foundation” on 18.01.2010 in the said house and started to promote educating children in and around the village.3.2. The defendants no.3 to 6, his brothers went away from the village. 2/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.894 of 2023All the defendants decided to hand over the agricultural lands in favour of the plaintiff for his sacrifices made to the family upliftment. In respect of agricultural lands, 'A' Schedule property, his father executed a settlement deed dated 10.10.2012 in Document No.5922/12 in Sub-Registrar Office, Bahour, Pondicherry in favour of the plaintiff and the extent of the property is about 16 acres 10 santhiyar= 0.30 kuzy. The plaintiff cultivates paddy crops in the said property as well as in the 'B' schedule property to an extent of 16 acres 10 santhiyar = 0.30 kuzy. The defendants no.1 to 6 joined together and started to give troubles to the plaintiff and very often and wordy quarrels were reported to the Bahour Police Station. Hence, the suit is filed for permanent injunction in respect of 'A' and 'B' schedule properties, not to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.4. The details of the suit properties, namely, 'A' and 'B' schedules are given hereunder:-g[Jr;nrhp hp/o/ghTh; rg;hpo/. ghTh; bfhk;a{d; g“";rhaj;;ijr; nrh;e;j fpuhk be/74. nrypankl;ilr; nrh;e;j g[upt[ghisak; btspapy; cs;s g[";ir epy';fs;;;;;:-“A” Schedule (gphpt[) :- hprh;nt be/218-9 fjh!;jh; be/24. 3-3-1. 24. 2-3-2-. 1-3-1. 24. 3-3-3-2. kw;Wk; hPrh;nt be/218-10. fjh!;jh; be/24. 3-3-2?y; Mfpa ,uz;L ,l';fSk; neh;e;J mike;Js;s (60 FHp + 3/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.894 of 202350 FHp = 110 FHp (m) fhdp 1 FHp 10 tPrk; ?0)?y;/ nkw;go thjp rk;gj;jpw;F brl;oy;bkd;l; gj;jpug;go nruntz;oaJ. fhdp?0?FHp 30?tPrk;?0?(m) bt;w/0 Mh; 16?rhe;jpahh; 10/,jw;F ehd;bfy;iyfs;; :- 1/fzgjp epyj;jpw;F nkw;F2/tPuuhftY epyj;jpw;F fpHf;F3/nkw;go tPuuhftY tifahu Kdpad; ,th;fs; epyj;jpw;F bjw;F4/m";rhg[yp epyj;jpw;F tlf;F ,jw;Fl;gl;lJ/“B” Schedule (gphpt[) :- hprh;nt be/218-9 fjh!;jh; be/24. 3-3-1. 24. 2-3-2-. 24. 1-3-1. 24. 3-3-3-2. kw;Wk; hPrh;nt be/218-10. fjh!;jh; be/24. 3-3-2?y; Mfpa ,uz;L ,l';fSk; nrh;e;J mikj;Js;s (60 FHp + 50 FHp = 110 FHp (m) fhdp 1 FHp 10 tPrk; ?0)?y;/ nkw;go Kjy; gpujpthjp m";rhg[ypf;F nruntz;oaJ. fhdp?0?FHp 30?tPrk;?0?(m) bt;w/0 Mh; 16?rhe;jpahh; 10/,jw;F ehd;bfy;iyfs;; :- 1/fzgjp epyj;jpw;F nkw;F2/tPuuhftY kw;Wk; ehuhazrhkp epy';fSf;F fpHf;F3/nkw;go thjp rk;gj;jpd; brl;oy;bkd;l; epyj;jpw;F bjw;F4/ j';fnky; epyj;jpw;F tlf;F ,jw;Fl;gl;lJ/”5. At trial, the plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.1 and twelve documents were marked. Certified copy of settlement deed executed by the 1st defendant in favour of the plaintiff 'A' schedule property dated 10.10.2012 is Ex.A1. Despite the receipt of summons, the defendants neither appeared nor engaged counsels, hence the defendants were set ex-4/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.894 of 2023parte before the trial Court.6. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence of the plaintiff and after hearing the arguments advanced by the plaintiff side, suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the 'A' schedule property and the suit was dismissed in respect of 'B' schedule property.7. Aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred appeal before the Principal Subordinate Court, Pondicherry in A.S.No.21 of 2021. Upon consideration of the trial Court records and after hearing the arguments advanced by both sides, the First Appellate Court by observing that the plaintiff failed to produce any document in respect of the 'B' schedule property, chose to dismiss the appeal. Against the said judgment and decree passed by the Principal Subordinate Court, Pondicherry, this Second Appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff.8. Originally, the plaintiff filed a suit in respect of 'A' and 'B' schedule properties and the trial Court passed an ex-parte decree in respect of 'A' schedule property alone, based on oral evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.A1 settlement deed. In respect of 'B' Schedule property, both the trial Court as 5/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.894 of 2023well as the First Appellate Court concurrently held that, no document was marked and hence, as the plaintiff has failed to prove the possession of 'B' schedule property and dismissed the suit and the first appeal filed by the plaintiff. 9. A thorough perusal of the plaint shows that in respect of 'B' schedule property, no document has been marked and proved in respect of possession of the said property as he has filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction. In the absence of the title deed in respect of 'B' schedule property, to support the contention of the plaintiff, the plaintiff's plea cannot be accepted and the Courts below have rightly dismissed the suit / first appeal.10. Above being the position, this Second Appeal stands dismissed at the admission stage itself. There is no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands closed. 07.08.2025Index:Yes/NoSpeaking/Non-speaking orderInternet:YesMac6/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.894 of 2023Copy to 1.The Principal Sub Judge, Puducherry2.The II Additional District Munsif, Puducherry 7/8 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.894 of 2023R.KALAIMATHI, J.MacS.A.No.894 of 202307.08.20258/8