2026:MHC:2361A.S(MD)Nos.32 and 33 of 2025

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

Reserved on: 23.03.2026

Pronounced on: 30.06.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VADAMALAI

A.S(MD)Nos.32 and 33 of 2025

and

C.M.P(MD)No.1629 of 2025

Vijayakumar,

S/o.Duraimanickam,

No.1183, West Street,

Thuraiyundarkottai Village,

Orathanadu Taluk,

Thanjavur District. ... Appellant/1

st

Defendant

in both Appeals

Vs.

1.T.Baskaran,

S/o.Thulasiayya Madhaiyundar,

No.1182, West Street,

Thuraiyundarkottai Village,

Orathanadu Taluk,

Thanjavur District. ...1

st

Respondent/Plaintiff

in both Appeals

2.C.Ramamoorthy,

S/o.Chinaiah,

No.1184, West Street,

Thuraiyundarkottai Village,

Orathanadu Taluk,

Thanjavur District. ...2

nd

Respondent/2

nd

Defendant

in both Appeals

COMMON PRAYER : These Appeal Suits are filed under Section 96 of

the Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the judgment and decree of the

III Additional District Court, Thanjavur at Pattukottai in O.S.No.244 of

2023, dated 09.01.2025 and counterclaim in O.S.No.244 of 2023.

1/33

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

A.S(MD)Nos.32 and 33 of 2025

In A.S(MD)No.32 of 2025:

For Appellant: Mr.P.Vadivel

For R1 : Mr.A.Senthilkumar

For R2 : No Appearance

In A.S(MD)No.33 of 2025:

For Appellant: Mr.P.Vadivel

For R1 & R2 : No Appearance

COMMON JUDGMENT

These Appeal Suits are directed against the judgment and decree,

dated 09.01.2025 passed in O.S.No.244 of 2023 and counterclaim in

O.S.No.244 of 2023 on the file of the III Additional District Court,

Thanjavur @ Pattukkottai.

2.The appellant is the 1st defendant in O.S.No.244 of 2023 on the

file of the III Additional District Court, Thanjavur @ Pattukkottai.

The 1st respondent is the plaintiff and the 2nd respondent is the

2nd defendant in that suit. The 1st respondent/plaintiff has filed the suit

for a declaration that the 1st respondent/plaintiff, his brothers and sisters

are absolute owners of the suit property and for a permanent injunction

against the defendants. The appellant/1st defendant and

2nd respondent/2nd defendant have filed a written

statement/counterclaim that the 1st defendant has an absolute legal right,

2/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S(MD)Nos.32 and 33 of 2025

title, and possession over the suit property and for a permanent injunction

against the plaintiff and his men.

3.For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per

their rank before the trial Court.

4.The brief facts are as below:

(a) The case of the plaintiff (1

st

respondent herein ) :-

The suit properties belonged to one Thulasi Madhaiyundar.

He adopted one Natesan Madhaiyundar, whose biological father was

Veerappan Madhaiyundar. On the death of Thulasi Madhaiyundar, the

said Natesan Madhaiyundar inherited the suit properties as an adopted

son and enjoyed the same till his death. Natesan Madhaiyundar has one

son, Thulasi Ayya Madhaiyundar and two daughters, late. Manonmani

and Deivasigamani. The children of Natesan Madhaiyundar orally

partitioned their family properties, in which the movables were allotted

to daughters and the immovable properties were allotted to Thulasi Ayya

Madhaiyundar. The said Thulasi Ayya Madhaiyundar has three sons and

two daughters. The plaintiff is one of his sons. Thulasi Ayya

Madhaiyundar died on 26.09.2021. After his death, the plaintiff, his two

brothers & his sisters have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit

3/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S(MD)Nos.32 and 33 of 2025

properties. The defendants have no manner of right or interest over the

suit properties. The defendants managed to create false documents to

claim rights over the suit properties. They created a document, dated

11.02.2022, pertaining to the suit property. On coming to know this, the

plaintiff objected to it and sent a legal notice, dated 08.08.2023.

The 1st defendant sent a reply notice dated 12.08.2023, denying the

plaintiff's title to the suit properties. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the

present suit for a declaration that the plaintiff and his brothers & sisters

are the absolute owners of the suit property and for a permanent

injunction.

(b) The case of the 1st defendant (appellant herein):-

The plaintiff has made false averments by suppressing real facts.

The suit properties belonged to Duraimanickam Mathaiyundar and

Chinnaiah Madhaiyundar, who jointly enjoyed them. They jointly

mortgaged the suit properties and other properties in favour of one

Meenachi Ammal on 28.10.1957 under registered document

No.1705/1957 and discharged the same on 08.11.1971. The plaintiff well

knew about the said mortgage and concealed the said fact in the plaint.

The said Duraimanickam Madhaiyundar and Chinnaiah Madhaiyundar

partitioned the suit properties and other properties by way of a registered

4/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S(MD)Nos.32 and 33 of 2025

partition deed in document No.150/1974, dated 07.12.1974.

In that partition, the suit properties, i.e., 3.38 acres, were allotted to

Duraimanickam Madhaiyundar and 2 acres were allotted to Chinnaiah

Madhaiyundar. The Revenue records were also changed. These facts are

also well known to the plaintiff and his forefathers. The 1st defendant is

the son of Duraimanickam Madhaiyundar. The said Duraimanickam

Madhaiyundar, his daughter and the 1st defendant, entered into a

registered partition deed under document No.367/1976, dated

15.01.1976. As per that partition, the suit property measuring 3.38 acres

was allotted to the 1st defendant. On 16.01.1976, the said Chinnaiah

Mathaiyundar and his son Ramamoorthy @ Subramanian and daughter

entered into a partition under document No.368/1976, in which the suit

property, 2 acres, was allotted to the 2nd defendant. Then, the

2nd defendant sold his property, 2 acres, in favour of the 1st defendant on

11.02.2022. So, the 1st defendant is the absolute owner of the suit

properties. The 2nd defendant is in no way connected with the suit

property. The plaintiff is the adjacent owner of the suit properties and is

cultivating the lands. For irrigation purposes, the plaintiff requested the

1st defendant to allow him to lay a pipeline through the suit properties,

and the same was granted by the 1st defendant as the plaintiff is a close

relative. The 1st defendant has renal failure and is under treatment.

5/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S(MD)Nos.32 and 33 of 2025

As there was a boundary issue between the 1st defendant and the

plaintiff, upon compromise, the measurement of the land was agreed to

be done by a revenue official. With the intention to drag the same, the

plaintiff has purposely laid the present vexatious suit after issuing legal

notice. The plaintiff has neither title nor possessory right over the suit

properties. The plaintiff has not clearly explained under which manner he

derived title in his legal notice, as well as in the suit averments.

Hence, the 1st defendant made a counterclaim for a permanent injunction

against the plaintiff and that the suit is to be dismissed.

(c) Plaintiff’s Reply Statement:-

In the reply statement, the plaintiff stated that the irrigation

pipeline through the suit property is sufficient to prove his possession

and enjoyment of the suit property. It is admitted by the defendant that

Natesan Madhaiyundar was the adopted son of Thulasi Madhaiyundar.

The suit properties originally belonged to Thulasi Madhaiyundar.

After his death, the adopted son, Natesan Madhaiyundar, inherited the

same. After his lifetime, his legal heirs inherited the suit properties.

The revenue records have also been transferred in their names.

6/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S(MD)Nos.32 and 33 of 2025

5. The trial Court framed the following issues upon the pleadings

of both parties.

(1)Whether it is correct to say by the

plaintiff that the suit property is in absolute

possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff along

with his cosharers?

(2)Whether the averments which are stated

in the counterclaim are an acceptable one?

(3)Whether the mortgage deed dated

28.10.1957 the partition deeds dated 07.12.1974,

15.01.1976 and sale deed dated 11.02.2022 binds

upon the plaintiff?

(4)Whether the 2nd defendant is an

unnecessary party to the suit?

(5)Whether the defendants are having

absolute title and enjoyment over the plaint

schedule property?

(6)Whether the plaintiff has a cause of

action?

(7) Is it admissible the counter-claim is filed

by the defendants?

(8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the

relief of a declaration and permanent injunction?

(9)Whether the defendants are entitled to get

the relief of a permanent injunction?

(10)And what other relief the plaintiff is

entitled?

7/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S(MD)Nos.32 and 33 of 2025

(11) And what other relief the defendants are

entitled to?

6.Before the trial Court, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1

and examined one Vijayakumar as P.W.2. On the plaintiff's side, Ex.A.1

to Ex.A.12 were marked. The defendants examined the 1st defendant as

D.W.1 and marked Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.21.

7.After hearing arguments of both sides and on appreciation of

evidence by either party, the trial Court has concluded that the plaintiff

has proved his case and the 1st defendant has not proved his

counterclaim and hence, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and

dismissed the counterclaim by its judgment and decree, dated

09.01.2025.

8.The judgment and decree of the trial Court passed in the suit as

well as counterclaim are under challenge by way of these appeals.

9.The points for consideration in these appeals are:

1)Whether the plaintiff has proved his title over

the suit properties?

2) Whether the 1

st

defendant has proved his

8/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S(MD)Nos.32 and 33 of 2025

title over the suit properties?

3) Whether the trial Court has erred in holding

Ex.A.11 permit is proof of title to the father of the

plaintiff?

4) Whether these appeals are to be allowed or

not?

10. Point Nos.1 to 4:

The learned counsel for the appellant/1st defendant has submitted

that the plaintiff has pleaded that the suit property belonged to his father,

Thulasi Ayya and produced Ex.A.1 - Patta Passbook, Ex.A.2 & 3 -

Adangal extract and Ex.A.11 - Irrigation Permit. Those documents are

admittedly revenue records. Except for those documents, the plaintiff

has not produced any piece of document to show his title. Even in Ex.A.1

- Patta, there is no mentioning about the 1st item of suit property, viz.,

R.S.No.291/GB/1A1 - 1.27.5 hectares and the 2nd item

R.S.No.291/GB/4 - 0.90.0 ares, was included at the very end of the

property list. So, Ex.A.1 itself is fabricated and doubtful and hence,

Ex.A.1 cannot be relied upon. Exs.A2 & A3 are follow up of Ex.A.1.

It is settled law that revenue records will not confer any title.

Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3, being revenue records, would not confer any title, but

the trial Court erred in considering Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.3 in favour of the

9/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S(MD)Nos.32 and 33 of 2025

plaintiff. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2019 (3) SCC 191 in the case of

Bhima Bai Mahadeo Kambekar through LR /v/ Arthur Import and

Export Company and Ors., in which it is held in paragraph Nos.6 and 7

as follows:

“6.This Court has consistently held that

mutation of a land in the revenue records does

not create or extinguish the title over such

land nor has it any presumptive value on the

title. It only enables the person in whose

favour mutation is ordered to pay the land

revenue in question. (See.Sawami.v. Inder

Kaur; Balwant Singh v. Daulant Singh and

Narasamma v. State of Karnataka).

7. The High Court while dismissing the

writ petition placed reliance on the

aforementioned law laid down by this Court

and we find no good ground to differ with the

reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the

High Court. It is just and proper calling for no

interference.”

11.The learned counsel for the appellant/1

st

defendant further put

forth arguments that the trial Court has solely relied on Ex.A.11, which is

said to be an irrigation permit issued to Thulasi, dated 23.12.1934.

10/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S(MD)Nos.32 and 33 of 2025

Ex.A.11 is only a colour Xerox, and it was marked on objection.

The plaintiff has not produced the original of Ex.A.11. So, Ex.A.11,

being a photocopy, has no evidentiary value. This document was

produced without any pleading in the plaint. The plaintiff has not pleaded

about the said document in his plaint nor in his reply statement. The

plaintiff must establish his title or legal rights to lead secondary

evidence. Hence, in the absence of pleading and without complying with

Section 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, Ex.A.11 cannot be looked into,

whereas the trial Court has committed a grave mistake in holding that

Ex.A.11 proved the title of the plaintiff without examining the probative

value and question of admissibility.

12.The learned counsel has relied on the following rulings:

(1) 2011 (4) SCC 240 in the case of H.Siddiqui (D) by LR /v/

A.Ramalingam, wherein it is held in paragraph No.12 as follows:

''12.Provisions of Section 65 of the 1872

Act provide for permitting the parties to adduce

secondary evidence. However, such a course is

subject to a large number of limitations. In a case

where original documents are not produced at

any time, nor, any factual foundation been laid for

giving secondary evidence, it is not permissible

for the court to allow a party to adduce

11/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S(MD)Nos.32 and 33 of 2025

secondary evidence. Thus, secondary evidence

relating to the contents of a document is

inadmissible, until the non production of the

original is accounted for, so as to bring it within

one or other of the cases provided for in the

section. The secondary evidence must be

authenticated by foundational evidence that the

alleged copy is in fact a true copy of the original.

Mere admission of a document in evidence does

not amount to its proof. Therefore, the

documentary evidence is required to be proved in

accordance with law. The court has an obligation

to decide the question of admissibility of a

document in secondary evidence before making

endorsement thereon. (Vide: The Roman Catholilc

Mission & Anr. v. The State of Madras & Anr.,

State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Khemraj & Ors., Life

Insurance Corporation of India & Anr. v. Ram Pal

Singh Bisen, and M.Chandra v. M.Thangamuthu

& Anr.

(2) 2007 (5) SCC 730 in the case of J.Yashoda /v/ K.Shobha

Rani, it is held in paragraph Nos.7 to 9 as follows:

“7.Secondary evidence, as a general rule

is admissible only in the absence of primary

evidence. If the original itself is found to be

inadmissible through failure of the party, who

12/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S(MD)Nos.32 and 33 of 2025

files it to prove it to be valid, the same party is

not entitled to introduce secondary evidence of its

contents.

8.Essentially, secondary evidence is an

evidence which may be given in the absence of

that better evidence which law requires to be

given first, when a proper explanation of its

absence is given. The definition in Section 63 is

exhaustive as the section declares that secondary

evidence "means and includes" and then follow

the five kinds of secondary evidence.

9.The rule which is the most universal,

namely, that the best evidence the nature of the

case will admit shall be produced, decides this

objection. That rule only means that, so long as

the higher or superior evidence is within your

possession or may be reached by you, you shall

give no inferior proof in relation to it. Section 65

deals with the proof of the contents of the

documents tendered in evidence. In order to

enable a party to produce secondary evidence it

is necessary for the party to prove existence and

execution of the original document. Under

Section 64, documents are to be provided by

primary evidence. Section 65, however permits

secondary evidence to be given of the existence,

condition or contents of documents under the

circumstances mentioned. The conditions laid

down in the said Section must be fulfilled before

13/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S(MD)Nos.32 and 33 of 2025

secondary evidence can be admitted. Secondary

evidence of the contents of a document cannot be

admitted without non-production of the original

being first accounted for in such a manner as to

bring it within one or other of the cases provided

for in the Section. In Ashok Dulichand v.

Madahavlal Dube, it was inter alia held as

follows: (SCC pp.666-67, para 7).

"7.After hearing the learned counsel for

the parties, we are of the opinion that the order

of the High Court in this respect calls for no

interference. According to clause (a) of Section

65 of Indian Evidence Act, Secondary evidence

may be given of the existence, condition or

contents of a document when the original is

shown or appears to be in the possession or

power of the person against whom the

document is sought to be proved or of any

person out of reach of, or not subject to, the

process of the Court, or of any person legally

bound to produce it, and when, after the notice

mentioned in Section 66, such person does not

produce it. Clauses (b) to (g) of Section 65

specify some other contingencies wherein

secondary evidence relating to a document may

be given, but we are not concerned with those

clauses as it is the common case of the parties

that the present case is not covered by those

clauses. In order to bring his case within the

14/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S(MD)Nos.32 and 33 of 2025

purview of clause (a) of Section 65, the

appellant filed applications on July 4, 1973,

before respondent No. 1 was examined as a

witness, praying that the said respondent be

ordered to produce the original manuscript of

which, according to the appellant, he had filed

photostat copy. Prayer was also made by the

appellant that in case respondent no.1 denied

that the said manuscript had been written by

him, the photostat copy might be got examined

from a handwriting expert. The appellant also

filed affidavit in support of his applications.

It was however, nowhere stated in the affidavit

that the original document of which the

photostat copy had been filed by the appellant

was in the possession of Respondent No.1.

There was also no other material on the record

to indicate the original document was in the

possession of respondent no.1. The appellant

further failed to explain as to what were the

circumstances under which the photostat copy

was prepared and who was in possession of the

original document at the time its photograph

was taken. Respondent No.1 in his affidavit

denied being in possession of or having

anything to do with such a document. The

photostat copy appeared to the High Court to

be not above suspicion. In view of all the

circumstances, the High Court came to the

15/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S(MD)Nos.32 and 33 of 2025

conclusion that no foundation had been laid by

the appellant for leading secondary evidence in

the shape of the photostat copy. We find no

infirmity in the above order of the High Court

as might justify interference by this Court."

(3) 2026 INSC 134 (Supreme Court) in the case of Tharammel

Peethambaram and Anr. /v/ T.Ushakrishnan and Anr., in which it is

held in paragraph Nos.20.1 to 20.4 as follows:

“20.1 The fundamental principle of the

Indian Evidence Act is that facts have to be

established by primary evidence. Section 64

mandates that documents must be proved by

primary evidence, which is considered the “best

evidence”. Primary evidence is the rule, while

secondary evidence is an exception admissible

only in the absence of primary evidence. A party

is generally required to produce the best

evidence available; so long as the superior

evidence (the original) is within a party's

possession or reach, they cannot introduce

inferior proof (secondary evidence).

20.2 Before secondary evidence can be

admitted, the party relying on it must lay a

factual foundation. This involves two steps: First,

the party must prove that the original document

actually existed and was executed. Secondly, the

party must establish valid reasons as to why the

16/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S(MD)Nos.32 and 33 of 2025

original cannot be furnished.

20.3 Secondary evidence is inadmissible

until the non-production of the original is

accounted for in a manner that brings the case

within the specific exceptions provided in Section

65. If the original itself is found to be

inadmissible through failure of the party who

files it to prove it to be valid, the same party is

not entitled to introduce secondary evidence of

its contents.

20.4 Section 65 of the Evidence Act is

exhaustive and states the specific circumstances

under which secondary evidence is permissible.

To introduce secondary evidence, a party must

satisfy the conditions of one of the clauses (a)

through (g) of Section 65.”

(4) (2016) 16 Supreme Court Cases 483 in the case of Rakesh

Mohindra /v/ Anita Beri and Ors., it is held in paragraph Nos.20 to 24

as follows:

“20. It is well settled that if a party wishes

to lead secondary evidence, the Court is obliged

to examine the probative value of the document

produced in the Court or their contents and

decide the question of admissibility of a

document in secondary evidence. At the same

time, the party has to lay down the factual

foundation to establish the right to give

17/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S(MD)Nos.32 and 33 of 2025

secondary evidence where the original

document cannot be produced. It is equally well

settled that neither mere admission of a

document in evidence amounts to its proof nor

mere making of an exhibit of a document

dispense with its proof, which is otherwise

required to be done in accordance with law.

13.It is further vehemently argued by the counsel for the appellant

that the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of his title; if so, the

plaintiff can succeed only by proving his case and not by relying on the

weakness of the defendants' case. The plaintiff must prove his title from

the origin, but the plaintiff has not produced any document to show his

title over the suit property. Whereas the 1st defendant has produced title

documents Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4 tracing title over the suit property, which

belonged to Duraimanickam Madhaiyundar and Chinnaiah

Madhaiyundar by producing Ex.B.1, a registered mortgage deed.

The family members of the said Duraimanickam Madhaiyundar and

Chinnaiah Madhaiyundar partitioned the suit properties and other

properties through Ex.B.2 to Ex.B.4 registered partition deeds showing

that the 1st item was allotted to Duraimanickam Madhaiyundar and the

2nd item was allotted to Chinnaiah Madhaiyundar. Thereafter, the

1st defendant and his sisters, who are the children of Duraimanickam

18/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S(MD)Nos.32 and 33 of 2025

Madhaiyundar, partitioned the properties and allotted the 1st item of the

suit property to the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant, who is the son of

Chinnaiah Madhaiyundar, sold the 2nd item to the 1st defendant under

Ex.B9, a registered sale deed dated 11.02.2022. The father of the

plaintiff, namely Thulasi Ayyah, signed as a witness in the documents

Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4, and the same was also admitted by the plaintiff. Based

on these documents, the revenue records, i.e., patta, chitta, etc., were

mutated in the name of the 1st defendant, and the 1st defendant produced

Ex.B.5 to B.8 and Ex.B.10 to Ex.B.12. But, the trial Court has not

considered the title documents produced by the 1st defendant, simply

stating that the 1st defendant has not taken any steps to prove possession

by examining the revenue authorities and the origin ‘Karamal’ was not

produced by the 1st defendant.

14.The learned counsel for the appellant further argued that Ex.B.1

to Ex.B.4 are registered documents which are admittedly more than

70 and 50 years old. While so, the mere non-production of any previous

document referred to in Ex.B.1 and Ex.B.2 cannot belittle his defense.

The plaintiff must prove his title and he cannot take advantage of the

weakness of defense. The plaintiff admitted that his father signed as a

witness in Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4, so his father could not have any title over

19/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S(MD)Nos.32 and 33 of 2025

the properties. The plaintiff filed only the revenue document Ex.A.1 patta

passbook and Ex.A.11 photocopy of permit. It is the specific case of the

1st defendant that the plaintiff is the adjacent owner of the suit property

and he was permitted to pass irrigation water through a pipeline laid

along the suit property. The 1st defendant strongly objected to Ex.A.11, a

coloured photocopy, even then, the plaintiff did not produce the original

of the same. The trial Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the

plaintiff proved title through Ex.A.11 coloured photocopy and Ex.A.1

patta passbook, which are not sufficient to hold that the plaintiff proved

his title over the suit property. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court

has to be set aside and the appeals may be allowed.

15.In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the

following rulings:

(1) (2014) 2 Supreme Court Cases (Civ) 66 in the case of Union

of India and Others /v/ Vasavi Cooperative Housing Society Limited

and Ors., it is held in paragraph Nos.19 to 22 as follows:

“19. The legal position, therefore, is clear

that the plaintiff in a suit for declaration of title

and possession could succeed only on the

strength of its own title and that could be done

only by adducing sufficient evidence to

20/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S(MD)Nos.32 and 33 of 2025

discharge the onus on it, irrespective of the

question whether the defendants have proved

their case or not. We are of the view that even if

the title set up by the defendants is found

against, in the absence of establishment of the

plaintiff’s own title, the plaintiff must be non-

suited.

20. We notice that the trial court as well

as the High Court rather than examining that

question in depth, as to whether the plaintiffs

have succeeded in establishing their title on the

scheduled suit land, went on to examine in

depth the weakness of the defendants' title.

The defendants relied on the entries in the GLR

and their possession or repossession over the

suit land to non-suit the plaintiffs. The court

went on to examine the correctness and

evidentiary value of the entries in the GLR in

the context of the history and scope of the

Cantonment Act, 1924, the Cantonment Land

Administration Rules, 1925 and tried to

establish that no reliance could be placed on the

GLR. The question is not whether the GLR

could be accepted or not, the question is,

whether the plaintiff could prove its title over

the suit property in question. The entries in the

GLR by themselves may not constitute title, but

21/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S(MD)Nos.32 and 33 of 2025

the question is whether entries made in Ext.A-3

would confer title or not on the plaintiff.

21. This Court in several judgments has

held that the revenue records do not confer title.

In Corporation of the City of Bangalore v.

M.Papaiah and another held that 5. ''it is firmly

established that revenue records are not

documents of title, and the question of

interpretation of document not being a

document of title is not a question of law.”.

In Guru Amarjit Singh v. Rattan Chand and

others this Court has held that 2.“that the

entries in Jamabandi are not proof of title”.

In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Keshav Ram

this Court held that 5.“an entry in the revenue

papers, by no stretch of imagination can form

the basis for declaration of title in favour of the

plaintiff.”

22. The Plaintiff has also maintained the

stand that their predecessor-in-interest was the

Pattedar of the suit land. In a given case, the

conferment of patta as such does not confer

title. Reference may be made to the judgments of

this Court in Syndicate Bank vs. APIIC Ltd. and

Vatticherukuru Village Panchayat v. Nori

Venkatarama Deekshithulu.

22/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S(MD)Nos.32 and 33 of 2025

(2) 2023 Live Law (SC) 999 in the case of P.Kishore Kumar /v/

Vittal K.Patkar, it is held in paragraph No.22 as follows:

“22.Contention advanced on behalf of

the plaintiff that through the record of rights the

plaintiff has established his title by a

preponderance of probabilities is not

sustainable. As noted above, the plaintiff failed

to produce a single document of title in respect

of the suit property. In a dispute with respect to

determination of title, merely pointing out the

lacunae in the defendant’s title would not

suffice. Having instituted the suit for

declaration, the burden of proof rested on the

shoulders of the plaintiff to reasonably establish

the probability of better title, which the plaintiff

in the presence case, has manifestly failed to

do.”

16.Per contra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff/1st respondent

has argued that the suit property originally belonged to Thulasi

Madhaiyundar, who adopted one Natesan, who was none other than the

eldest brother of Duraimanickam Madhaiyundar and Chinnaiah

Madhaiyundar. After the death of Thulasi Madhaiyundar, his adopted son

Natesan, inherited his property. Natesan died in 1944 and his son Thulasi

Ayya Madhaiyundar and two sisters orally partitioned their family

23/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S(MD)Nos.32 and 33 of 2025

properties. The movables were allotted to sisters and the immovable

property was allotted to Thulasi Ayya Madhaiyundar, who died on

26.09.2021. His children, namely the plaintiff and his brother & sisters,

have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff

produced Ex.A.11 permit for irrigation with Cauvery water issued to the

said Thulasi. So, without a title over the suit property, the permit could

not be issued. The 1st defendant has also admitted in his written

statement that the plaintiff erected a pipeline through the suit property for

passing irrigation water. So, the possession of the suit property by the

plaintiff is clearly proved. Further, the Patta Passbook - Ex.A.1 was also

issued to the plaintiff. Ex.A.11 was issued in the year 1934.

The 1st defendant admitted in his evidence that he has not irrigated the

land. Though the 1st defendant traced title through Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4.

Ex.B.1 is a mortgage deed transacted between brothers and Ex.B.2 to

Ex.B.4 are also executed between themselves. Ex.B.2 was executed

based on the ‘Karamal sheet’. The 1st defendant has not produced the

said Karamal Sheet and also, there is no explanation for the

non-production of the same. In Ex.A.1, the entire property has been

mentioned, and the R.S.No.291 GB/1A1 has been mentioned. The 2nd

item, R.S.No.291 GB/4, was also mentioned. Merely, it was lastly

mentioned that the same cannot be objected. Except for D.W.1, no other

24/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S(MD)Nos.32 and 33 of 2025

witness was examined on the defendants' side. So, the trial Court

correctly held that the plaintiff had proved his title and possession over

the suit property and rightly decreed the suit and dismissed the

counterclaim. Therefore, there will be no need for interference with the

judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appeals may be dismissed.

17.I have carefully considered the arguments of both sides and the

rulings relied on by the appellant's/1st defendant side, along with

material records of the case. The suit property is measuring 5 acres 38

cents, consisting of two items, viz., 3 acres 38 cents in R.S.No.

291GB/1A1 and 2 acres in R.S.No.291GB/4. It is admitted that the

plaintiff has adjacent land to the suit property. It is also an admitted fact

that the plaintiff has not produced any title documents relating to the suit

property except Ex.A.1 - Patta Passbook and Ex.A.11 - Permit for

irrigation of water. It is the case of the plaintiff that one Natesan,

biological paternal uncle of the 1st defendant, was adopted by one

Thulasi Madhaiyundar; that the suit property belonged to him and after

his death, the adopted son Natesan inherited the property and that after

the death of Natesan his son Thulasi Ayya Madhaiyundar and his

daughters partitioned the properties, whereby the suit property was

allotted to Thulasi Ayya Madhaiyundar. It is the further case of the

25/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S(MD)Nos.32 and 33 of 2025

plaintiff that Thulasi Ayya Madhaiyundar died on 26.09.2021 and, after

that the plaintiff and his brothers & sister are enjoying the suit properties.

It is a well-settled position of law that the revenue records will not confer

any title on the person in whose name the same was issued. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court has repeatedly held the same in a catena of its judgments.

The 1st defendant’s side ruling reported in 2023 Live Law (SC) 999

clearly held that the revenue records are not documents of title and

mutation entries in revenue records do not confer any right, title, or

interest in favour of the person, and the mutation entry in the revenue

records is only for the fiscal purpose. Hence, this Court is of the

considered view that Ex.A.1 will not confer any title in favour of the

plaintiff.

18.Next, the plaintiff relies on Ex.A.11 for their title over the suit

property. A perusal of the same, it is clear that Ex.A.11 is a permit for

irrigation with Cauvery water, issued by the Special Executive Engineer,

Cauvery Mettur Project. A further perusal of the same would show that

the major portion of the said permit chit has typographical letters, only

the name of the permittee and the serial number are shown as written.

The 1st defendant objected that Ex.A.11 is only a colour photocopy and

the plaintiff has not produced the original of the same. The plaintiff has

26/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S(MD)Nos.32 and 33 of 2025

not explained the non-production of the original of Ex.A.11.

When a document is alleged to be fabricated or forged one, it is the duty

of the litigant who produces the document must prove that the document

is genuine one by adducing acceptable evidence. The plaintiff has not

examined any independent witness to prove the Ex.A.11.

Moreover, Ex.A.11 was issued in 1934, the plaintiff’s grand father

Natesan died in 1944, if so the plaintiff has not explained whether

Ex.A.11 was issued to the adopted father Natesan i.e., whether Thulasi

Madhaiyundar's adopted father was Natesan or if it was issued to Thulasi

Ayaa Madhaiyundar father of plaintiff, especially when the plaintiff

pleaded that it was issued to Thulasi Ayya Madhaiyundar. So, an adverse

presumption can be led against the plaintiff. Moreover, as per Section

65 of the Indian Evidence Act, only secondary evidence can be lead,

however, the plaintiff must prove his title as per Section 64 of the Indian

Evidence Act.

19.In this case, the plaintiff has not produced any piece of

document to show his title or the original of Ex.A.11. Therefore, as

rightly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Siddiqui case (as above),

secondary evidence relating to the contents of a document is

inadmissible until the non-production of the original is accounted for, to

27/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S(MD)Nos.32 and 33 of 2025

bring it within one or other of the cases provided for in the section.

The rulings relied on by the 1st defendant clearly held that the plaintiff,

who seeks a declaration of title, has the burden of proof, which lies on

the shoulder of the plaintiff and he must prove his better title by

producing admissible title documents and the plaintiff cannot take

advantage of the weakness of defense. Ex.A.11 is only permission for

passing water and it could not be taken as a conveyance of title or proof

of being the title holder of the said property. It is the definite case of the

1st defendant that the permission was granted to the plaintiff to take

water through the pipeline installed through the suit property. This was

not specifically denied by the plaintiff, much less disproved the same.

So, Ex.A.1 - Patta Passbook and Ex.A.11 would not suffice to prove title

and possession over the suit property by the plaintiff. The trial Court has

erred in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff proved title over the

suit property based on Ex.A.1 and Ex.A.11 revenue records, which are

inadmissible documents to prove title as per settled propositions of the

Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court.

20.The 1st defendant traced title over the suit property by

producing Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4, which are registered mortgage deed and

partition deed. Though these are executed among the brothers, it is the

28/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S(MD)Nos.32 and 33 of 2025

plea of the 1st defendant that the plaintiff’s father, Thulasi Ayya

Madhaiyundar, has signed as a witness in those documents. This was not

denied by the plaintiff. The plaintiff as P.W.1 has also admitted the

signature of his father as a witness in those documents. So, P.W.1 cannot

go back against his admission. Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4 are admittedly

registered 70 and 50 years old documents. In case the plaintiff’s father

had any right over the properties, he would not sign as a witness in

Ex.B1 to Ex.B4. The plaintiff has also not taken any steps to produce the

same nor examined anyone to explain the same. The 1st defendant claims

that he has been irrigating the suit property with several coconut trees for

more than 40 years. The plaintiff has not disputed the same. So, the trial

Court erred in rejecting the defence merely holding that the alleged

Karamal sheet was not produced by the 1st defendant, whereas the trial

court acted on inadmissible evidence of revenue records produced by the

plaintiff and thus, the trial Court has committed a grave error in

decreeing the suit by placing the revenue records on a higher probative

pedestal.

21.There is no clear explanation for the Karamal sheet, nor the

trial Court has made an attempt to clarify the same. It is learnt that it is

common practice among family members in certain areas of Tamil Nadu

29/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S(MD)Nos.32 and 33 of 2025

to write down the description of their family properties by equal shares

in a separate sheet during partition of their family properties in their

presence and in the presence of elders/mediators and each family

member is asked to pick up a sheet of their choise by way of lot and it is

called ‘Karamal Sheet’. This is mentioned in Ex.B.2 partition deed.

Admittedly, there were a large number of properties available for

partition while perusing the Ex.B.2 to Ex.B.4 - Partition deeds, which are

registered documents. In those documents, the plaintiff’s father stood as

a witness. In case he had any right or title over those properties, he could

not stand as witness, definitely, he would have agitated the same.

But, there is no material in this aspect on the plaintiff's side.

When Ex.B.2 to Ex.B.4 are registered as more than 50 years old

documents, the contents of the same can be presumed authenticated and

genuine one.

22.Moreover, the plaintiff admitted that his father signed as a

witness in those documents. From Ex.B.2 to Ex.B.4, it is clear that the

suit property measuring 3 acres 38 cents was allotted to the

Duraimanickam Madhaiyundar and 2 acres were allotted to Chinnaiah

Madhaiyundar. The 1st defendant is the son of Duraimanickam

Madhaiyundar and the 2nd defendant is the son of Chinnaiah

30/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S(MD)Nos.32 and 33 of 2025

Madhaiyundar and this fact is not disputed by the plaintiff. On the

demise of those two persons, the said 3 acres 38 cents derived by the 1st

defendant and the 2nd defendant, who derived the said 2 acre sold out to

the 1st defendant by way of Ex.B9 sale deed. This is also not disputed

by the plaintiff and there is no other independent witness evidence to

disprove the same. So, the 1st defendant has proved his title over the suit

property through Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.4 and Ex.B.9. The plaintiff has not

adduced any documents to disprove the said exhibits. Therefore, the

plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs sought in his suit, but the

1st defendant is entitled to the reliefs sought in his counterclaim.

The citations relied on by the appellant's side are squarely applicable to

the facts of this case.

23.Considering the above facts and circumstances, the trial Court

has not properly adjudicated the case in proper perspective without

appreciating both sides evidence and thereby erred in decreeing the suit

in favour of the plaintiff and dismissing the counterclaim of the

1st defendant. Therefore, the judgment and decree of the trial Court

warrant interference by this Court by way of this appeal. Thus, these

appeals succeed. The points are answered accordingly.

31/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S(MD)Nos.32 and 33 of 2025

24.In the result, these Appeal Suits are allowed. The judgment and

decree, dated 09.01.2025 passed in O.S.No.244 of 2023 and counter

claim in O.S.No.244 of 2023 on the file of the III Additional District

Court, Thanjavur @ Pattukkottai are set aside. The suit in O.S.No.244 of

2023 on the file of the III Additional District Court, Thanjavur @

Pattukkottai is dismissed. The counterclaim in O.S.No.244 of 2023 on

the file of the III Additional District Court, Thanjavur @ Pattukkottai is

allowed by granting permanent injunction restraining the plaintiff and his

men not to disturb the 1

st

defendant's peaceful possession and enjoyment

of the suit property. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous

Petition is closed. No costs.

30.06.2026

NCC : Yes / No

Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes / No

VSD

To

1.The III Additional District Court,

Thanjavur @ Pattukkottai.

2.The Record Keeper,

Vernacular Section,

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,

Madurai.

32/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S(MD)Nos.32 and 33 of 2025

P.VADAMALAI, J.

VSD

Pre - Delivery Judgment made in

A.S(MD)Nos.32 and 33 of 2025

and

C.M.P(MD)No.1629 of 2025

30.06.2026

33/33 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis