2026:MHC:617A.S. NO.21 OF 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 08 / 02 / 2026

JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON : 17 / 02 / 2026

CORAM :

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

AND

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

A.S. NO.21 OF 2017

AND

C.M.P. NO.745 OF 2017

1.Thillainayagam (Died)

2.Thillainatarajan (Died) … Appellants-1 & 2 /

Plaintiffs

3.T.Chandra

4.P.T.Subashini

5.P.T.Senthilkumar

Note:Appellant-2 passed away.

Appellant-3 to 5 are brought on

record as legal representatives of

deceased Appellant-2, vide Order

of this Court dated March 12,

2024 made in C.M.P.

No.2118/2024 in A.S.

No.21/2017.

6.T.Lalitha

Note:Appellant-1 passed away.

Appellant-6 is brought on record

as legal representative of

deceased Appellant-1, vide

Order of this Court dated

Page No.1 of 24

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

A.S. NO.21 OF 2017

December 5, 2025 made in

C.M.P. Nos.1216, 1217 & 1218

of 2025 in A.S. No.21/2017.

... Appellants-3 to 6/

Legal representatives

of plaintiffs

Versus

1.Anjammal

2.Arunkumar ... Respondents /

Defendants

PRAYER: First Appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule

1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the Judgment and

Decree dated August 8, 2016 made in O.S. No.54 of 2015 on the file of II

Additional District Court, Chidambaram.

For Appellants : Mrs.Hema Sampath

Senior Counsel

Assisted by Mrs.R.Meenal

For Respondents : Mr.A.Muthukumar

* * * * *

J U D G M E N T

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated August 8,

2016, passed in O.S. No.54 of 2015 on the file of 'the II Additional District

Court, Chidambaram' ('Trial Court' for short), the plaintiffs therein have

filed this Appeal Suit under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the

Page No.2 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S. NO.21 OF 2017

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 praying to allow the Appeal, set aside the

Judgment and Decree, and decree the Suit as prayed for in the plaint.

2. For the sake of convenience, henceforth, the parties to this Appeal

Suit will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

PLAINTIFFS' CASE

3. The suit properties consist of 'A' and 'B' schedules of properties.

The Suit 'A' schedule property measures 22 feet east-west and 172 feet

north-south and it lies within the specific four boundaries. The Suit 'B'

schedule property, measuring 11 feet east-west and 172 feet north-south,

constitutes the western half portion of the Suit 'A' schedule property. In

other words, the Suit 'B' schedule property forms a part and parcel of the

Suit 'A' schedule property.

3.1. The Suit 'A' schedule property originally belonged to Muthu

Padayatchi and his son - Semba Padayatchi as their ancestral entitlement

and each were entitled to undivided ½ share. There existed a tiled house

towards the middle of the Suit 'A' schedule property, with its major portion

lying on the eastern side. There also existed a 6 feet north-south lane

within Suit 'A' schedule property on its western side. The property abutting

Page No.3 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S. NO.21 OF 2017

the northern boundary of Suit 'A' schedule property belongs to the Math of

Mouna Guru Manickavasaga Swamigal. Semba Padayatchi sold his

undivided half share in the Suit 'A' schedule property to Manickavasaga

Swamigal vide Sale Deed dated June 26, 1912, registered on June 27,

1912, under Document No.1446. Pursuant to the sale, Manickavasaga

Swamigal was in possession and enjoyment of the western half of Suit 'A'

schedule property, which is the Suit 'B' schedule property.

3.2. Thereafter, under his Will dated December 17, 1921,

Manickavasaga Swamigal created a religious trust, and inter-alia dedicated

the property purchased by him through the aforesaid Sale Deed under

Document No.1446, to the said trust for religious charitable purposes.

Further, under the said Will, Manickavasaga Swamigal appointed

Ambalavana Pillai, Murugesan Pillai and their santhathi (descendants), as

trustees to manage and continue the administration of the said trust.

3.3. Ambalavana Pillai and Murugesan Pillai discharged their duties

as trustees until their respective deaths. Thereafter, Murugesan Pillai's son -

Ponnambala Pillai, acted as trustee and was in possession and enjoyment

of the Suit 'B' schedule property. During his lifetime, a portion of the tiled

house in the 'B' Schedule property collapsed. Ponnambala Pillai died about

Page No.4 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S. NO.21 OF 2017

30 years prior to the Suit, and since then the plaintiffs, being his sons, have

been in possession and enjoyment of the Suit 'B' schedule properties as

trustees.

3.4. That being so, the first defendant is the mother of the second

defendant and widow of one Chakravarthy. Said Chakravarthy died about

four to five years prior to the Suit. Around the year 2009, Chakravarthy

encroached upon the southern portion of Suit 'B' schedule property to an

extent of 10 feet X 10 feet. Chakravarthy claimed that he had purchased

the said portion from Venkatarama Iyer, son of Krishnamurthy Iyer in

1971. The plaintiffs subsequently came to know that Krishnamurthy Iyer

had allegedly purchased the property from Krishnasamy Iyer on June 21,

1943.

3.5. Hence, the plaintiffs have filed the present Suit for partition of the

plaintiffs' half share in Suit 'A' schedule property and pursuant allotment

and separate possession of the Suit 'B' schedule property in favour of them.

Further, the plaintiff sought for a mandatory injunction directing the

defendants to remove the superstructure put up on the Suit 'B' schedule

property.

Page No.5 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S. NO.21 OF 2017

DEFENDANTS' CASE

4. The defendants filed a written statement denying the averments

made by the plaintiffs in the plaint. The defendants contended that the

registered Sale Deed dated June 27, 1912 executed by Semba Padayatchi,

and Manickavasaga Swamigal's Will dated December 17, 1921, are

irrelevant to the case on hand and also baseless; they are not related to the

suit properties. It was further stated that the father of the second defendant

purchased the suit properties vide Sale Deed dated August 25, 1971 and he

was in possession and enjoyment of the same. After his lifetime, the

defendants being his successors are in possession and enjoyment of the suit

properties. Stating so, the defendants sought dismissal of the Suit.

TRIAL COURT

5. On these pleadings, the parties went to trial. The Trial Court

framed issues, which can be loosely translated as follows:

'1Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to claim ½ share in

the Suit 'A' schedule property?

2.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to seek partition in

the Suit 'B' schedule property?

3.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to Preliminary

Decree as prayed for?

4.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to Mandatory

Page No.6 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S. NO.21 OF 2017

Injunction as prayed for?

5.To what other reliefs?'

6. At trial, on the side of the plaintiffs, plaintiffs examined

themselves as P.W.1 and P.W.2 respectively and Ex-A.1 to Ex-A.3 were

marked. On the side of the defendants, second defendant was examined as

D.W.1 and Ex-B.1 to Ex-B.14 were marked.

7. The Trial Court after analysing the oral and documentary

evidence, concluded that the plaintiffs did not establish that Muthu

Padayatchi and his son - Semba Padayatchi were the original owners who

were in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. On the other hand,

the defendants have traced title from the year 1903 and proved their

possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. As the defendants have a

better title in respect of the entire suit properties, the Trial Court dismissed

the Suit.

APPEAL

8. Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated August 8,

2016 of the Trial Court, the plaintiffs have preferred this Appeal Suit.

Page No.7 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S. NO.21 OF 2017

9. Since the second appellant / second plaintiff passed away during

the pendency of this Appeal, his legal representatives were brought on

record as Appellant Nos.3 to 5, vide Order of this Court dated March 12,

2024 made in C.M.P. No.2118 of 2024 in A.S. No.21 of 2017. Likewise,

the first appellant / first plaintiff also passed away during the pendency of

this Appeal and his legal representative was brought on record as Appellant

No.6, vide Order of this Court dated December 5, 2025 made in C.M.P.

Nos.1216, 1217 and 1218 of 2025 in A.S. No.21 of 2017.

ARGUMENTS

10. Mrs.Hema Sampath, learned Senior Counsel assisted by

Mrs.R.Meenal, appearing for the appellants / legal representatives of

plaintiffs would submit that the suit properties were originally owned by

Muthu Padayatchi and his son - Semba Padayatchi as their ancestral

property. Vide Ex-A.1 - Sale Deed dated June 26, 1912, Semba Padayatchi

sold his undivided ½ share in Suit 'A' schedule property in favour of

Manickavasaga Swamigal. Manickavasaga Swamigal's Math is situate

abutting the northern boundary of Suit 'A' schedule property. On the

western portion of Suit 'A' schedule property, there is a north-south lane,

linking the road on south and the Math on north. Hence, Manickavasaga

Page No.8 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S. NO.21 OF 2017

Swamigal was in possession and enjoyment of the western portion of the

suit properties; in other words, he was in possession and enjoyment of the

Suit 'B' schedule property.

10.1. She would further submit that Manickavasaga Swamigal

executed Ex-A.2 - Will dated December 17, 1921, wherein and whereby,

he created a trust and dedicated the property covered under Ex-A.1 along

with some other properties to the said trust for religious charitable

purposes. The plaintiffs qua the present trustees of the trust created by

Manickavasaga Swamigal, are in possession and enjoyment of the trust's

properties including Suit 'B' schedule property. While so, the defendants

encroached an extent of 10 feet X 10 feet on the southern portion of Suit

'B' schedule property. Hence, the plaintiffs seeks to partition the Suit 'A'

schedule property into equal halves and allot the western half in favour of

the plaintiffs after removing the superstructure therein.

10.2. She would further submit that the defendants trace their title

from the year 1903 under Ex-A.3 - Sale Deed dated February 26, 1903.

The suit properties were allegedly purchased from one Sellammal. While

the four boundaries mentioned therein correlates with that of the suit

properties, the east-west measurement are written in Tamil numerals and

Page No.9 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S. NO.21 OF 2017

are not visibly clear. According to her, for that reason, the defendants

cannot claim title over the entire extent of suit properties.

10.3. Further she would submit that Sellammal executed Ex-B.1 -

Sale Deed in favour of Samikannu Padayatchi and his brother -

Periyathambi Padayatchi, in respect of a north-south stretch of land whose

east-west measurement is 19 foot [1 foot = 12 inches; so 19 foot = 15.8

feet], while retaining her hut in the western portion. Thereafter, Samikannu

Padayatchi and his minor son executed Ex-B.2 - Sale Deed dated

September 2, 1919 in favour of Krishnasamy Iyer in respect of the north-

south stretch of land, but with an east-west measurement of 26.5 foot [26.5

foot = 22 feet as mentioned therein]. When Samikannu Padayatchi's

predecessor in title namely Sellammal had sold only east-west 19 foot in

the north-south stretch of land under Ex-B.1, it is not possible for

Samikannu Padayatchi and his minor son to sell east-west 26.5 foot under

Ex-B.2. In the documents subsequent to Ex-B.2 viz., Ex-B.3 to Ex-B.5, the

erroneous measurement of 26.5 foot has been followed. Hence, these

documents would not bind the plaintiffs. The Trial Court without

appreciating Ex-A.1, Ex-A.2 and other evidence available on record, erred

in dismissing the Suit. Accordingly, she would pray to allow the Appeal

Page No.10 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S. NO.21 OF 2017

Suit, set aside the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court and decree the

Suit as prayed for.

11. Opposing the submissions, Mr.A.Muthukumar, learned Counsel

appearing for the respondents / defendants would submit that the plaintiff

failed to establish that the suit properties originally belonged to Muthu

Padayatchi and Semba Padayatchi, nor did the plaintiff establish their

alleged possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Further, Ex-A.1 -

Sale Deed & Ex-A.2 - Will are inadmissible as they are not the original

documents and there is no foundational plea for letting in secondary

evidence. Further, there is no evidence to show that the purchaser under

Ex-A.1 and testator under Ex-A.2, namely Manickavasaga Swamigal, was

in possession and enjoyment of the Suit 'B' schedule property. He would

refer to the evidence of P.W.1 and submit that it has been admitted by

P.W.1 that the suit properties are not in possession and enjoyment of the

plaintiffs. Hence, the Suit as framed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable.

11.1. He would further submit that the defendants have successfully

traced their title from the year 1903 vide Ex-A.3 - Sale Deed, wherein

Sellammal @ Sellathamal purchased a north-south strip of land measuring

Page No.11 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S. NO.21 OF 2017

east-west 25.5 foot. Though the east-west measurement is not visibly clear

owing to the age of the document, in the register of index relating to Ex-

A.3 - Sale Deed called for from the Registration Department by this Court,

the east-west measurement is clearly mentioned as 25.5 foot. The

subsequent documents in Ex-B.2 to Ex-B.5 proves the defendants title over

the suit properties. Further, the second defendant's father - Chakravarthy

obtained building permission (Ex-B.6) in the year 2003, wherein the east-

west measurement has been clearly mentioned as 21.9 feet. Further Ex-B.7

- Licence to construct building, Ex-B.11 - Property Tax Receipt, Ex-B.12 -

Electricity Connection Transfer Letter, Ex-B.13 - Development Charges

Receipt, Ex-B.14 - Licence Fee Receipt, these documents clearly establish

the defendants' title and possession over the suit properties. The Trial Court

after carefully appreciating the entire evidence available on record rightly

dismissed the Suit and there is no warrant to interfere with it. Accordingly,

he would pray to dismiss the Appeal Suit and sustain the Judgment and

Decree of the Trial Court.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION:

12. Upon hearing either side and perusing the evidence available on

record, the following points arise for consideration in this Appeal Suit :

Page No.12 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S. NO.21 OF 2017

(i)Whether the suit properties were originally owned by Muthu

Padayatchi and Semba Padayatchi as their ancestral entitlement

and whether they were in possession and enjoyment of the suit

properties in 1912 ?

(ii)Whether Manickavasaga Swamigal was in possession and

enjoyment of the Suit 'B' schedule property pursuant to Ex-A.1

- Sale Deed executed by Semba Padayatchi in respect of his ½

undivided share in the suit properties ?

(iii)Whether the defendants have established their title and

possession over the entire extent of suit properties ?

(iv)Whether the Judgment and Decree of the Trial Court is liable to

be interfered with by this Court ?

13. There is no dispute with respect to the lie and location of Suit 'A'

schedule property, which is a north-south strip of land [bjd;tly; mry;

kidf;bfhj;j thbyhG';Fs;s kid]. The Suit 'A' schedule

property as described measures north-south 172 feet and east-west 22 feet.

It is bounded by the Manickavasaga Swamigal's Math on the north; an

Page No.13 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S. NO.21 OF 2017

east-west road on the South; another Math on the East; and land belonging

to Natraja Padayatchi and Anjala Padayatchi on the West. There is a north-

south lane lying within the Suit 'A' schedule property. No serious dispute

with the above facts.

14. In Ex-A.1 - Sale Deed dated June 26, 1912 [registered on June

27, 1912 under Document No.1446], it has been recited that Semba

Padayatchi is thereunder selling his undivided ½ share in Suit 'A' schedule

property in favour of Manickavasaga Swamigal. But there is no

documentary or oral evidence to trace the vendor - Semba Padayatchi's

title over the suit properties. Further, there is no evidence to show that the

vendor - Semba Padayatchi was in possession and enjoyment of the suit

properties in 1912, let alone settled possession. Nor is there any evidence

to show that pursuant to the sale under Ex-A.1, Manickavasaga Swamigal

was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties or any portion

thereof. Furthermore, P.W.1 as well as P.W.2, who are the plaintiffs 1 and 2

respectively, have categorically admitted that the defendants are in

possession and enjoyment of the suit properties, and importantly, they did

not deny Ex-B.1 to Ex-B.5 - Sale Deeds; they pleaded ignorance about the

said Sale Deeds. They even about pleaded ignorance about the possession

Page No.14 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S. NO.21 OF 2017

and enjoyment of Manickavasaga Swamigal. This Court deems fit to

extract the relevant portion of the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 hereunder:

Relevant portion from the cross-examination of P.W.1:

1903 Mk; Mz;L bry;yk;khs; tHf;F brhj;ij“

bry;yk;khs; vd;gth; fpiuak; th';fpapUf;fpwhh; vd;why;

bjhpahJ. 07.07.1911 tUlk; bry;yk;khs; brhj;ij

rhkpf;fz;q gilahl;rpf;F fpiuak; bfhLj;jhh; vd;why;

bjhpahJ. 2.9.1919 rhkpf;fz;q gilahl;rp Tj;jhLk;

gps;isahh; nfhtpy; bjU fpUc;&zrhkp ma;aWf;F fpiuak;

bfhLj;jhh; vd;W bjhpahJ. 21.6.1943y; fpUc;&;zrhkp ma;ah;

me;j brhj;ij Rg;gpukzp ma;ah; bt';fnlrd;; ma;ah;

kw;Wk; ,uz;L ikdh;fs; cl;gl mth;fSf;F fpiuak;

bfhLj;jhh;fs; vd;why; bjhpahJ. khatuk; jhYf;fh nfhky;

fpuhkk; me;j rkak; jpUthYhh; Jh;f;f Mya bjUtpy; 30

ek;gh; tPl;ow;Fk; bt';fnlrd; ma;aUf;F fpiuak; bfhLj;j

tptuk; bjhpahJ. 1944 tUlk; ikdh;fs; ,uz;L

nghplk; ,Ue;J brhj;ij tpLjiy th';fpa tptuk; bjhpahJ/

25.8.1971y; fpUc;&zKh;j;jp ma;ah; ,Ue;j brhj;ij rf;futh;j;jp

fpiuak; bfhLj;jJ bjhpahJ. tHf;F brhj;ij

bghWj;J ,d;W tiu ve;j tpjkhd mDgtKk; v';fSf;F

fpilahJ. th/rh/M/1d; go 26.6.1912y; gpughtjp tUlk; Mdp

khjk; 13y;; Kj;JFkhu gilahl;rp mth; kfd;

brk;ggilahl;rp bksdrhkp klj;jpw;F vGjpf;bfhLj;j

Mtzk; MFk;. me;jbrhj;J brk;ggilahl;r;rpf;nfh mth;

jfg;gdhh; Kj;JFkhugilahl;rp ve;j tifapy; te;jJ vd;W

brhy;yg;gltpy;iy. me;j brk;ggilahl;rp tapw;W

gpiHg;g[f;fhf klj;jpy; ,Ue;jth; vd;W bjhpahJ. ,d;iwf;Fk;

klj;jpy; rhg;ghL nghlg;gLfpwJ. mth; klj;jpw;F VjhtJ

bra;antz;Lk; vd;Wk; Mtzj;ij cw;gj;jp bra;J

bfhLj;jpapUf;fpwhh; vd;why; rhpay;y. md;iwf;Fs;

bksdrhkpahh; me;j Mtzj;ij Vw;Wf;bfhz;lhh;fsh vd;W

bjhpahJ.... ”

Page No.15 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S. NO.21 OF 2017

Relevant portion from the cross-examination of P.W.2:

bksdrhkp klj;ij ehd; 30 tUl';fshf guhkhpj;J“

tUfpnwd;. 22 mo mfyk; 172 mo ePsk; cs;s brhj;jij

gpujpthjp mDgtj;J tUfpwhh;fs; vd;why;; rhpjhd;. mth;fs;

mDgtpj;J tUk; brhj;jpy; Rw;wpYk; fy; kjpy; Rth; cs;sJ/

me;jRth; gHikahdJ. mjd; Kd;gf;fj;jpy;

g[jpajhf ,uz;L kho fl;olk; fl;oapUf;fpwhh;fs;.

gpd;gf;fj;jpy; xl;L tPL mg;gona ,Uf;fpwJ. 1903-k; Mz;L

gj;jpuk; vGjp bry;yk;khs; fpiuak;th';fpaJ bjhpahJ. 1911k;

Mz;L $^iy khjk; rhkpf;fz;qgilahl;rpf;F bry;yk;khs;

fpiuak; bfhLj;jJ bjhpahJ. 2.9.1919 rhkpf;fz;q gilahl;rp

Tj;jhLk; gps;isahh; nfhtpy; bjU fpUc;&/zrhkp ma;aWf;F

fpiuak; bfhLj;jhh; vd;W bjhpahJ. 21.6.1943y; fpUc;&zrhkp

ma;ah; me;j brhj;ij Rg;gpukzp ma;ah; bt';fnlrd; ma;ah;

kw;Wk; ,uz;L ikdh;fs; cl;glnrh;j;J mth;fSf;F fpiuak;

bfhLj;jhh;fs; vd;why; bjhpahJ. khatuk; jhYf;fh nfhky;

fpuhkk; me;j rkak; jpUthYhh; Jh;f;f Mya bjUtpy; 30

ek;gh; tPl;oy; ,Uf;Fk; bt';fnlrd; ma;aUf;F fpiuak;

bfhLj;j tptuk; bjhpahJ. 1944 tUlk;

ikdh;fs; ,uz;Lnghplk; ,Ue;J brhj;ij tpLjiy th';fpa

tptuk; bjhpahJ. 25.8.1971y; fpUc;&/zK:h;j;jp ma;ah; ,Ue;j

brhj;ij rf;futh;j;jp fpiuak;th';fpaJ bjhpahJ. tHf;F

brhj;ij bghWj;J ,d;W tiu gpujpthjpfs; mDgtpj;J

tUfpwhh;fs; vd;why; rhpjhd;. 26.6.1912y; gpughtjp tUlk;

Mdp khjk; 13y; Kj;JFkhu gilahl;rp mth; kfd;

brk;ggilahl;rp bksdrhkp klj;jpw;F vGjpf;bfhLj;j

MtzkhFk;. me;j brhj;J Kj;Jg;gilahl;rp ahhplk; fpiuak;

th';fpaJ bjhpahJ. brk;ggilahl;r;rpf;nfh mth; jfg;gdhh;

Kj;JFkhugilahl;rp ve;j tifapy; te;jJ vd;W bjhpahJ/...”

15. Further, as rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the

Respondents / Defendants, the Sale Deed and the Will marked in Ex-A.1

Page No.16 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S. NO.21 OF 2017

and Ex-A.2 respectively are not the originals and there is no foundational

plea in this regard.

16. On the other hand, the defendants have traced their title from

1903 through Ex-A.3 and Ex-B.1 to Ex-B.6 - Sale Deeds. Vide Ex-A.3 -

Sale Deed dated February 26, 1903, Sellammal purchased a north-south

strip of land in the Suit survey number within specific four boundaries

from Gopala Chettiyar and Kuttiaandi Padayatchi. In Ex-A.3, the east-west

measurement of the property covered thereunder is mentioned in Tamil

numerals and further it is not visibly clear. The measurement could not be

deciphered. Hence, this Court vide Order dated January 21, 2026, inter-

alia directed the Sub Registrar, Chidambaram to produce the register

relating to encumbrances during the period of 1890 to 1912 relating to suit

properties. The Sub Registrar, Chidambaram produced the register of index

relating to Ex-A.3, which clearly shows the east-west measurement of the

property covered under Ex-A.3 as 25 ½ foot. Relevant extract from the

register of index reads thus:

“...tlf;F tpjPapy; Mj;jpehl;L klj;Jf;F nkw;F

rpjk;gugilahr;rp fhypk]df;F fpHf;F

kt[drhkp klj;J njhl;lj;Jf;F bjw;F

Page No.17 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S. NO.21 OF 2017

tPjpf;F tlf;F ,jpy; Xl;Ltpy;]y fl;L nfhg;g[[

60 be/ fhL fhypk]d cs;gl fp/nk fhyo 25 ½mjpYs;s

khtil kutil cs;gl mjpYs;s thy;tPr;Rj; njhl;lKk;”

17. Hence, it is clear that under Ex-A.3, a north-south strip of land

having east-west measurement of 25 ½ foot in Suit survey number within

specific four boundaries was sold to Sellammal @ Sellathammal.

Admittedly, the specific four boundaries of the property covered under Ex-

A.3 matches that of the suit properties and it is in the Suit survey number.

Further, the north-south and east-west measurements also more or less

matches that of the suit properties. Hence, it is safe to say that Sellammal

@ Sellathammal purchased the suit properties under Ex-A.3.

18. After acquiring the suit property which is a north - south strip of

land under Ex-A.3, Sellammal executed Ex-B.1 - Sale Deed dated July 7,

1911 in favour of Saamikannu Padayachi and Periyathambi Padayachi,

conveying a portion of the suit properties to the extent of east-west 19 foot,

while retaining the remaining portion on the western side. To be noted,

there is no serious dispute with the north-south measurement of the north-

south strip of land originally purchased under Ex-A.3; the dispute lies only

with its east-west measurement.

Page No.18 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S. NO.21 OF 2017

19. Thereafter, under Ex-B.2 - Sale Deed dated September 2, 1919,

Saamikannu Padayachi and another sold the north-south strip of land to the

extent of east-west 26 ½ foot, which is 22 feet as mentioned in Ex-B.2, in

favour of Krishnasamy Iyer. It remains unexplained how Saamikannu

Padayachi and another sold east-west 26 ½ foot [22 feet], when vendor -

Sellammal sold only east-west 19 foot under Ex-B.1 - Sale Deed.

20. Be that as it may, thereafter, the property covered under Ex-B.2

was sold by Krishnasamy Iyer and others, to Krishnamoorthy Iyer,

describing east-west measurement as 22 feet vide Ex-B.3 - Sale Deed dated

June 21, 1943. It is recited therein that the east-west 22 feet includes the 6

feet Naarasam on the western side. Naarasam as described in A

Comprehensive Tamil-English Dictionary by M.Winslow [Asian

Educational Services, New Delhi & Chennai, 2011], means a narrow

straight land at a right angle to a street. Further, vide Ex-B.4 - Release

Deed dated January 8, 1944, Minor Natrajan expressed his consent for the

sale under Ex-B.3 after attainting the age of majority [though Ex-B.4 bears

the nomenclature of Release Deed, it is a Consent Deed in substance].

21. Under Ex-B.5 - Sale Deed dated August 25, 1971, Venkatrama

Iyer, son of Krishnamoorthy Iyer [vendee under Ex-B.3], sold the same

Page No.19 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S. NO.21 OF 2017

extent viz., east-west 22 feet, to second defendant's father. Thus, the

defendants would trace their title to the suit properties.

22. In order to prove their possession and enjoyment of the suit

properties, the defendants have marked Exs-B.7, B.11 to B.14. Ex-B.7 is a

licence obtained in the year 2001 to construct building, Ex-B.11 is a

property tax receipt obtained in 1973, Ex-B.12 is a no objection letter from

vendor - Venkatrama Iyer to vendee - Chakravarthy [second defendant's

father] written in 1972, for the purpose of effecting electricity connection

name transfer. Ex-B.13 - Development Charges Receipt and Ex-B.14 -

Licence Fee Receipt were issued in favour of defendants' side in the year

2013. All these documents are in respect of the suit properties. Bare

perusal of these documents establish the possession and enjoyment of the

north-south strip of land to the extent of east-west 22 feet, by the

defendants' side.

23. Although the defendants have traced their title from the year

1903 in a largely clear manner, it is true that there exist a small gap or

rather discrepancy with respect to east-west extent, in the chain of

defendants' title between Ex-B.1 and Ex-B.2 - Sale Deeds as stated supra.

There appears to be some discrepancy in the extent of east-west 26½ foot

Page No.20 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S. NO.21 OF 2017

[21 feet] in the north-south strip of land [suit property] conveyed by

Saamikannu Padayachi and another, inasmuch as their vendor - Sellammal

had conveyed only east-west 19 foot under Ex-B.1 - Sale Deed while

retaining east-west 6 feet in the western side thereof. But in Ex-B.3 - Sale

Deed, there is a specific recital that the east-west 22 feet covered

thereunder includes the 6 feet Naarasam. Furthermore, as stated supra, the

defendants have established their possession over the entire extent of suit

properties vide Exs-B.7, B.11 to B.14. It is possible that Sellammal

subsequently conveyed the east-west 6 feet portion retained by her, but

there is no evidence in this regard, nor is there any pleadings to explain the

discrepancy. However, as elaborated above, plaintiffs' have miserably

failed to establish their alleged title, rights and possession over the suit

properties. In fact, in their evidence as P.W.1 and P.W.2, they have

supported the case of defendants by deposing that the entire extent of suit

properties is under the possession and enjoyment of the defendants.

Further, have not denied the defendants' Sale Deeds but have just evasively

deposed that they are not aware of the same. Further, the Sale Deeds in Ex-

B.3 and Ex-B.5 and the Release Deed in Ex-B.4 are originals. Under such

circumstances, on a holistic consideration of the facts and circumstances as

well as the evidence available on record, this Court comes to the

Page No.21 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S. NO.21 OF 2017

conclusion that the defendants have established a better title than the

plaintiffs. Hence, the plaintiffs are not entitled to the reliefs sought for.

24. Moreover, the Suit is not maintainable for the reason that the

plaintiffs ought to filed the Suit in their capacity as trustees of the trust

created by Manickavasaga Swamigal. The plaintiffs are claiming title and

right over the Suit 'B' schedule property by describing it as trust property

and by virtue of the fact that they are the present trustees of the trust. Bare

reading of the cause title shows that the Suit has been filed by the plaintiffs

in their individual capacity. As individuals, they have no claim over the

suit properties. Hence, the Suit is not maintainable on that score.

25. The Trial Court after considering the evidence available on

record, rightly dismissed the Suit and this Court finds no reason to interfere

with its Judgment and Decree. Point Nos.(i) to (iv) are answered

accordingly in favour of defendants and against the plaintiffs. As all the

points for consideration are inter-twined, they were combined and

answered.

Page No.22 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S. NO.21 OF 2017

CONCLUSION

26. Resultantly, the Appeal Suit stands dismissed. In view of the

facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

[N.S.K., J.] [R.S.V., J.]

17 / 02 / 2026

Index : Yes / No

Internet : Yes / No

Neutral Citation: Yes / No

Speaking Order

TK

To

The II Additional District Court

Chidambaram.

Page No.23 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

A.S. NO.21 OF 2017

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

AND

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

TK

PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT MADE IN

A.S. NO.21 OF 2017

17 / 02 / 2026

Page No.24 of 24 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis