S.A.Nos.1679 of 2003, 1127 and 1128 of 2004

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Date of Reserved : 16/03/2026

Date of Pronounced : 05/06/2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA

S.A.Nos.1679 of 2003, 1127 and 1128 of 2004

(1)SA No.1679 of 2003:-

1.Gopinath (Died) : 1

st

Appellant/Appellant/

Plaintiff

2.N.Leelavathy : 2

nd

Appellant/LR of the

(2

nd

appellant is brought on record deceased sole appellant

as LR of the deceased sole appellant,

vide Court order, dated 11/01/2023

made in CMP(MD)No.12869 of 2022

in SA No.1679 of 2003)

Vs.

1.S.Ponnammal (Died)

2.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board

Rep. B y Superintending Engineer,

Maharaja Nagar,

Tirunelveli-11.

3.Junior Engineer,

Distribution,

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,

Samathanapuram,

Palayamkottai. : Respondents 1 to 3/Respondents/

Defendants

1/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.Nos.1679 of 2003, 1127 and 1128 of 2004

4.S.Kumarasamy

5.S.Suriyanarayan

6.V.Gomathi

7.T.Jeyanayagam

8.S.Somasuntharam : Respondents 4 to 8

(Respondents 4 to 8 are brought on

record as LR.s of the deceased 1

st

respondent, vide Court order, dated

30/06/2023 made in CMP(MD)Nos.

12862, 12864 and 12866 of 2022 in

SA No.1679 of 2003)

PRAYER: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil

Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 24/10/2002 made

in A.S.No.52 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli,

confirming the judgment and decree dated 18/10/2001 and made in

O.S.No.22 of 1996 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif,

Tirunelveli.

For Appellants : Mr.P.Thiagarajan

For R4 to R8 : Mr.V.Meenakshisundaram

For R1 : Died (Steps taken)

For R2 and R3 : No appearance

2/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.Nos.1679 of 2003, 1127 and 1128 of 2004

2.SA No.1127 of 2004:-

S.Ponnammal : Appellant/Appellant/Plaintiff

Vs.

Gopinath : Respondent/Respondent/Defendant

PRAYER: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil

Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 24/10/2002 made

in A.S.No.43 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli,

confirming the judgment and decree dated 18/10/2001 and made in

O.S.No.450 of 1995 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif,

Tirunelveli.

For Appellant : : Died

For Respondent : No appearance

(3)SA No.1128 of 2004:-

S.Ponnammal : Appellant/Appellant/1

st

Defendant

Vs.

1.Gopinath : 1

st

Respondent/Respondent/

Plaintiff

3/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.Nos.1679 of 2003, 1127 and 1128 of 2004

2.Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,

through its Superintending Engineer,

Mahajaraja Nagar,

Tirunelveli.

3.Junior Engineer,

Tamil Nadu Electricity Board,

(Distribution) Samathanapuram,

Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli. : Respondents 2 and 3/Respondents/

Defendants 2 and 3

PRAYER: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil

Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 24/10/2002 made

in A.S.No.47 of 2002 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli,

confirming the judgment and decree dated 18/10/2001 and made in

O.S.No.22 of 1996 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif,

Tirunelveli.

For Appellant : Died

For Respondents : No appearance

COMMON JUDGMENT

S.A.No.1679 of 2003 has been filed by Gopinath who is the

plaintiff in O.S.No.22 of 1996 as against the judgment and decree, dated

24/10/2002 and made in A.S.No.52 of 2002 on the file of the Principal

Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli, confirming the judgment and decree,

dated 18/10/2001 and made in O.S.No.22 of 1996 on the file of the

4/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.Nos.1679 of 2003, 1127 and 1128 of 2004

II Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli. Whereas S.A.No.1127 of 2004

has been filed by Ponnammal who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.450 of 1995

as against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.43 of 2002, dated

24/10/2002 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli, as

confirmed in O.S.No.450 of 1995, dated 18/10/2001 on the file of the

II Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli. Similarly, S.A.No.1128 of

2004 has been filed by Ponnammal who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.450 of

1995 as against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.47 of 2002,

dated 24/10/2002 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court,

Tirunelveli, as confirmed in O.S.No.22 of 1996 dated 18/10/2001 on the

file of the II Additional District Munsif, Tirunelveli.

2.The suit in O.S.No.450 of 1995 was filed by one

Ponnammal as plaintiff against Gopinath for a declaration and permanent

injunction. According to the plaintiff, the suit property originally

belonged to one Velayuthampillai. On 16/11/1911, the said

Velayuthampillai gifted the first item of the suit scheduled property in

favour of his wife Thayammal @ Avudaiyammal. The said Thayammal

@ Avudaiyammal sold the property to one Sankaravadivammal, on

25/09/1913. After the death of Sankaravadivammal, the property

5/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.Nos.1679 of 2003, 1127 and 1128 of 2004

devolved upon her son Subbaiyapillai. Thereafter, on 11/04/1945, he sold

the property to the plaintiff's father Somasundaram Pillai. The said

Somasundaram Pillai executed a registered Will on 07/10/1956. The said

Will came into effect after the death of the Somasundaram Pillai, on

15/06/1973. As per the Will, the first scheduled suit property bequeathed

to the plaintiff. After the death of her father, she has been in continuous

possession and enjoyment of the property. In all the documents from the

year 1911, the present Door No.17 showed as vacant land on the eastern

boundary of her property. Only during the year 1913, constructions were

made in the first scheduled property. The plaintiff's house bears Door

No.20. The eastern side of the wall situated in her property belongs to the

plaintiff and her ancestors.

3. The suit wall has been in possession and enjoyment by the

plaintiff's family ever-since the date of the construction. It was not in the

possession and enjoyment of the defendant. The house bearing Door No.

17 was situated on the eastern side of the plaintiff's house. There was a

corridor available measuring 4 feet between Door No.17 and Door

No.20. Recently the officials from the Survey Department came and

measured the property mentioning the wall as a common wall which was

6/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.Nos.1679 of 2003, 1127 and 1128 of 2004

wrong. The said wall exclusively belongs to the plaintiff. The plaintiff,

therefore, prayed to declare that the wall as the absolute property of the

plaintiff and to pray grant of injunction.

4.The defendant, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.22 of 1996

filed written statement by contending that the wall which is the subject

matter of the suit is the the western side wall of the defendant house

bearing Door No.17. The suit property belongs to the plaintiff situated

only on the western side of his property. A small corridor was situated on

the eastern side of the the property. That was the common pathway for

Door Nos.18, 19 and 20. The same was concealed by the plaintiff. The

plaintiff or her ancestors has no right whatsoever over the property.

Therefore, the defendant prayed that the suit filed by the plaintiff has to

be dismissed and the suit filed by him in O.S. No.22 of 1996 has to be

allowed.

5.The trial Court, after receipt of the written statement has

framed the following issues in O.S No.450 of 1995:-

1.Whether in the suit second scheduled property, the

plaintiff is in separate possession?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of

7/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.Nos.1679 of 2003, 1127 and 1128 of 2004

declaration and injunction as prayed for?

3.To what other relief, the plaintiff is entitled to?

6.The defendant (Gopinath) also filed a suit in O.S.No.22 of

1996 for declaration, injunction and mandatory injunction against the

plaintiff. According to him the suit property belonged to one

Thangammal, by virtue of her purchase under a registered sale deed,

dated 03/08/1973 executed by Ulagammal and Esakkiammal. The

plaintiff further contended that the western portion of the wall was

maintained by the said Thangammal as the exclusive owner along with

the house bearing Door No.17. After the death of the said Thangammal,

her legal heirs namely the plaintiff and his sister by name Leelavathi

were in enjoyment of the property. A partition suit in O.S.No.114 of 1989

was filed by Leelavathi before the Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli. The

plaintiff was allotted the first scheduled property, which is the western

portion of the first scheduled property of the plaintiff and it was

confirmed in a final decree passed, on 03/07/1995. The plaintiff is in

possession and enjoyment of the entire second scheduled property

namely, the western portion of Door No.17 and after the allotment, the

western wall was enjoyed as his exclusive wall. The said wall is the

exclusive wall of the plaintiff and her predecessor in title. North-south

8/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.Nos.1679 of 2003, 1127 and 1128 of 2004

western wall also shown as third scheduled property. The first defendant

claimed to be the owner of the Door No.17 adjourning the western wall

of the plaintiff's first scheduled property. Recently the first defendant

making bogus claim to the plaintiff's entire western portion of the wall.

Neither the first defendant, nor his predecessor has any right whatsoever

over the property. The first defendant also erected the electrical pole in

the second scheduled property wall for obtaining the electricity

connection. Immediately, the plaintiff through his Advocate sent a

telegram to the Superintending Engineer and the Junior Engineer, who

are the defendants 2 and 3 in O.S. No.22 of 1996 requesting them to stop

the electric service connection to the said first defendant. However, the

first defendant and his son in-spite of strong objection from the plaintiff

put up a wall on the plaintiff's exclusive third scheduled property of

about 10 feet and connected the same to the newly constructed Arch

bearing Door No.20 and also inserted palmyra wood frames in the third

scheduled wall. All the above constructions were made in a hurried

manner. When the plaintiff is ready to initiate legal action for the first

defendant's encroachment, after receiving the Advocate notice from the

plaintiff, suppressing the material facts on the recent construction. At the

same time, claiming exclusive right over the third scheduled wall.

9/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.Nos.1679 of 2003, 1127 and 1128 of 2004

Subsequently, she also filed a frivolous suit in O.S.No.450 of 1995 for

consequential injunction. He insisting on the matter to his Advocate for

filing a strong written statement. The first defendant seems to have sent a

objection to the District Survey Office and for finding of the wall

between T.S.Nos.220 and 221. In response to her objection, a notice,

dated 20/04/1995 requesting the plaintiff to appear for enquiry along

with records, on 15/05/1985 to the plaintiff. The Inspector of Survey also

visited the property and took proper measurements between T.S.Nos.220

and 221. The plaintiff appeared for enquiry and gave statement pointing

out that it is exclusively belonged to him. The first defendant's man

representing on his behalf, appeared for enquiry, but failed to give any

statement. A communication was sent by the Surveyor to the first

defendant, on 05/07/1995 requesting her to seek a remedy through a

Court of law. But she filed the frivolous suit in O.S.No.450 of 1995.

Therefore, the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction

and mandatory injunction against the defendants.

7. The first defendant filed a written statement denying the

allegations but reiterated his contention in O.S.No.450 of 1995. Hence,

prayed for dismissal of the suit.

10/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.Nos.1679 of 2003, 1127 and 1128 of 2004

8.After hearing both sides, the trial court has framed the

following issues in O.S.No.22 of 1996:-

1.Whether the third scheduled suit property belonged

to the plaintiff?

2.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for declaration

injunction?

3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for injunction as

prayed for?

4.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for mandatory

injunction as prayed for?

5.To what other reliefs?

9. Both the suits were tried together and the witnesses were

recorded in O.S.No.450 of 1995. On the side of the plaintiff, PW1 and

PW2 were examined and documents Exs.P1 to P11 were marked. On the

side of the defendant, DW1 was examined and documents Exs.B1 to B15

were marked.

10. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the

suit in O.S.No.450 of 1995 filed by Ponnammal and decreed the suit filed

by Gopinath in O.S.No.22 of 1996 declaring that the suit property

11/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.Nos.1679 of 2003, 1127 and 1128 of 2004

belonged the defendant in O.S.No.450 of 1995, who is the plaintiff in

O.S.No.22 of 1996 and also granted the relief of permanent injunction.

However, mandatory injunction was denied.

11. Against the dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.450 of 1995

filed by Ponnammal and an appeal filed by Gopinath against the partly

decreeing the suit in O.S.No.22 of 1996. A.S.Nos.43 of 2002 and 47 of

2002 have been filed by Ponnammal, whereas, A.S.No.52 of 2002 has

been filed by Gopinath, against the rejection of the prayer of mandatory

injunction in O.S.No.22 of 1996. All the appeals were jointly heard by

the Principal Sub Judge, Tirunelveli, and dismissed all the appeals, by a

common judgment, dated 24/10/2002. Against which, these three second

appeals were preferred by the appellants.

12. At the time of admission of S.A.No.1679 of 2003, the

following substantial questions of law were framed :-

1.Is the learned Principal Subordinate Judge right in

negativing the decree for mandatory injunction as barred

by limitation when the appellant has clearly in his

pleadings and evidence has stated that the cause of action

arose in 1995?

2.Is the learned Principal Subordinate Judge right in

12/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.Nos.1679 of 2003, 1127 and 1128 of 2004

negativing the decree for mandatory injunction as not

claimed against the Electricity Board when the decree of

declaration and present injunction was granted against all

the defendants including the Electricity Board and that it

binds the Electricity Board also?

13.Similarly, when admitting S.A.Nos.1127 and 1128 of

2004, the following substantial questions of law were framed:-

1.Whether Courts below have acted without any

material evidence?

2.Whether the interpretation of the documents filed

by the parties is wrong?

3.Whether the Courts below failed to take into

consideration the features in the suit properties?

14. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant in

S.A.No.1679 of 2003 and the learned counsel appearing for the

respondents 4 to 8.

15. In the suit in O.S.No.450 of 1995 in which the deceased

Ponnammal seeking declaration and permanent injunction, declaring that

the suit wall is her absolute wall.

13/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.Nos.1679 of 2003, 1127 and 1128 of 2004

16. The plaintiff sought a declaration of title over the suit

wall on the basis of alleged continuous possession and enjoyment.

However, her own evidence discloses that the disputed wall is not the

eastern wall of her house bearing Door No.20, but a wall situated beyond

the veranda and corridor on the eastern side thereof. She further admitted

that the pathway adjoining the wall is used not only by her but also by

the owner of Door No.19. Such admission considerably weakens her

claim of exclusive ownership over the disputed wall.

17. A careful scrutiny of Ex.A1, the parent settlement deed

of the year 1911, reveals that the property conveyed thereunder was

described as lying on the western side of the property belonging to

Esakiah Pillai, together with the veranda and corridor. Significantly,

there is no recital conveying any eastern boundary wall as part of the

settlement. Similar descriptions are found in Ex.A9 and other title deeds

relied upon by the plaintiff. None of those documents establish that the

disputed wall formed part of the property conveyed to the plaintiff or her

predecessors-in-title.

14/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.Nos.1679 of 2003, 1127 and 1128 of 2004

18. On the contrary, Ex.B4, the title deed of the defendant’s

predecessor-in-title, specifically refers to the conveyance of the house

together with the compound wall. The subsequent documents, including

Ex.B2, also disclose that the property was transferred along with the

wall. The defendant has further established his title through the partition

proceedings in O.S.No.114 of 1989 and the final decree passed therein,

whereby the suit property was allotted to him. Although the plaintiff was

not a party to the said proceedings, the burden still rested upon her to

independently to prove her title, which she failed to discharge.

19. The plaintiff also failed to produce any documentary

evidence before the revenue authorities when an attempt was made to

measure the property and ascertain whether the disputed wall formed part

of her holding. Such conduct lends support to the defendant’s case.

20. Insofar as the relief of mandatory injunction is

concerned, the defendant Gopinath alleged that the plaintiff had raised

unauthorised constructions during the year 1995. However, no

convincing evidence was produced to establish that the construction was

newly put up in the year 1995. The defendant himself admitted the

15/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.Nos.1679 of 2003, 1127 and 1128 of 2004

existence of the corridor from an earlier point of time and failed to

produce photographs or other reliable evidence showing that the disputed

structure did not exist previously. Be that as it may, the grievance

relating to the electricity connection was directed primarily against one

Pitchaiyapillai, who was not proceeded against, nor was any effective

relief sought against the Electricity Board. Consequently, the Courts

below rightly declined the relief of mandatory injunction.

21. The findings recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by

the First Appellate Court are based on a proper appreciation of the oral

and documentary evidence. The plaintiff has failed to establish either title

or exclusive possession over the disputed wall, whereas the defendant

has produced cogent documentary evidence supporting his claim. No

perversity, illegality or misreading of evidence is demonstrated

warranting interference in second appeal. Accordingly, the judgments

and decrees of the Courts below are liable to be affirmed.

22. Nevertheless, having regard to the submission that the

disputed wall is presently in a dilapidated condition, it is made clear that

the respondents 4 to 8 (legal heirs of deceased Ponnammal) shall not

16/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.Nos.1679 of 2003, 1127 and 1128 of 2004

alter, reconstruct or expand the existing structure so as to change its

present physical features.

23. In the result, all the second appeals are dismissed and the

judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are confirmed. No

costs.

05.06.2026

Index: Yes

Internet: Yes

NCC : Yes / No

er

To

1.The Principal Subordinate Court,

Tirunelveli.

2.The II Additional District Munsif Court,

Tirunelveli.

Copy to

1.The Section Officer,

ER/VR Section,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

17/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.Nos.1679 of 2003, 1127 and 1128 of 2004

R.POORNIMA, J.

er

Pre-Delivery Common Judgments in

S.A.Nos.1679 of 2003, 1127 and 1128 of 2004

05/06/2026

18/18 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis