MR.RANGANATHAN(Died) vs MR.VASUDEVAN

SA No. 872 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P. DHANABAL
SA No. 872 of 2012
CNR:{HCMA010406262012}
and MP.No.1 of 2012
1. Mr.Ranganathan (Died)
S/o. Samikkannau,
th
No.3, 11 Cross Street,
New Colony, Chrompet, Chennai-44
2. Parimala Devi
W/o. Late Ranganathan, No.3,11th Cross St,
New Colony, Chrompet, Chennai-44
3. Kalavathi
W/o. Sakthivel, No.8, Subramani Koil First St,
Rajaji Nagar, Pallavaram, Chennai-43
4. Shanthi
W/o. Srinivaskumar, No.100/230, G-5, Rao
Chandrika Apartments, GST Road, Chrompet,
Chennai-44
5. R.Kameshwaran
S/o. Late Ranganathan,
th
No.3, 11 Cross Street, New Colony,
Chrompet, Chennai-44
sole appellant Died, A2 to 5 are brought on
record as legal heirs of the deceased sole
appellant vide court order dated 07/10/2026
made in cmp.no.12765 of 2017 in SA.No.872 of
2012
..Appellant(s)
Vs
1. Mr.Vasudevan
th
S/o Vadivel, No.39, 12 Cross Street, New
Colony, Chrompet, Chennai-44.
__________
Page1 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:06 pm )

SA No. 872 of 2012
2. Mr.Manikandan
th
S/o Narayanan, No, 3, 11 Cross Street,
New Colony, Chrompet,
Chennai-44.
..Respondent(s)
Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code,
against the Judgement and Decree granted in O.S.No.483 of 2001 on the file of
the Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur and confirmed in A.S.No.60 of
2010 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Tambaram are need to be set aside to dismiss
the suit filed by the respondents.
For Appellant(s): Mr.A.Ilaya Perumal
For Respondent(s): Mr.S.Ravi
A.Meena For R1
R2 - Unclaimed
JUDGMENT
(1) This Second Appeal has been preferred as against the judgment and
decree passed by Sub-ordinate Judge, Tambaram in A.S.No.60 of 2010 dated
st st
23.12.2021. The appellant is the 1 defendant. The 1 respondent herein is the
plaintiff in the suit has filed the original suit in O.S.No.483 of 2001 on the file
of the Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur, dated 17.06.2010 for the relief
of permanent injunction and the said suit was decreed by the Trial Court.
st
Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree the 1 defendant has preferred the
appeal in A.S.No.60 of 2010 on the file of the Sub Ordinate Court, Tambaram
__________
Page2 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:06 pm )

SA No. 872 of 2012
and said appeal was also dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree
st
passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the 1
defendant has preferred this Second Appeal.
(2) The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that, originally the suit
property belongs to the grand-father of the plaintiff namely, Kuppusamy
measuring an extent of 4 cents, he occupied the property and was in peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the property and died on 24.09.1982. After his
demise, his wife, Thulasiammal and daughter, Kiliammal were in possession
and enjoyment of the same. The said Kuppuswamy has obtained Assignment
Patta in his name dated 17.05.1974 to the extent of 3 cents and the said
Kuppuswamy had paid ‘B’ memo charges to the extent of one cent. Thereby he
had been in possession and enjoyment of the entire 4 cents. The Thulasiammal,
wife of Kuppuswamy who is the grand-mother of the plaintiff had executed a
Will dated 21.02.1995 in favour of the plaintiff and thereafter she died on
14.09.1998. After her demise, the Will came into effect and the plaintiff is in
peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The plaintiff had put up a
hut in the suit property and residing there along with his family. The defendants
have no any right, title or interest over the property and they attempted to
interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property.
Therefore the plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction.
__________
Page3 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:06 pm )

SA No. 872 of 2012
(3) The case of the defendants is that the suit is not maintainable and the suit
property never belonged either to Kuppuswamy or to plaintiff. The said
Thulasiammal is not wife of Kuppuswamy and Kiliammal is not the daughter of
Kuppuswamy. The Will executed by Thulasiammal is not true. The
st
Thulasiammal died on 14.09.1998. The 1 defendant’s mother is Nagammal, the
said Thulasiammal is the elder sister of Nagammal. The Nagammal was
recognised as legal heir of Thulasiammal. The Thulasiammal had no right over
the 4 cents, thereby she cannot execute any Will to an extent of 4 cents. The
st
mother of the 1 defendant, Nagammal is the absolute owner of the property
and property is classified as ‘Vaikal Poromboke’. The said Nagammal had been
in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property and the revenue
Adangal are standing in the name of Nagammal. Since the property has been
classified as ‘Vaikal Poromboke’, Assignment Patta in favour of the
Kuppusamy cannot be true. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.
(4) Based on the above said pleadings, after hearing the learned counsels on
either side, the Trial Court has framed the following issues for Trial:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a relief of permanent injunction as
prayed for?
2.Whether the Will dated 21.02.95 in favour of the plaintiff as alleged by
the defendants in their written statement is true or not?
3. To what relief?
__________
Page4 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:06 pm )

SA No. 872 of 2012
(5) Before the Trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, three witnesses were
examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and marked 11 documents, Ex.A1 to Ex.A11. On
the side of the defendant, one witness D.W.1 was examined and marked 4
documents, Ex.B1 to B4. After analysing the evidences adduced on both sides,
the Trial Court decreed the suit on 17.06.2010. Aggrieved by the said judgment
st
and decree, the 1 defendant has preferred an appeal in A.S.No.60 of 2010 on
various grounds. The First Appellate Court has framed the following points for
determination.
st
1. Whether the 1 respondent/plaintiff is entitled for the
relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?
2. Whether the decree and judgment passed by the
trial Court in O.S.No.483/2001 is liable to be set aside?
(6) The First Appellate Court after analysing the evidences adduced on either
side, dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the
st
Trial Court. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the 1 defendant has
preferred the Second Appeal.
(7) This Court at the time of admitting the Second Appeal framed the
following Substantial Questions of Law:
1. Whether the Courts below are right in granting
the decree for bare injunction without claiming the relief of
declaration when there is a dispute of title and rival claim over
the suit property?
2. Whether the Courts below are correct in
__________
Page5 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:06 pm )

SA No. 872 of 2012
imposing the burden of proof on the part of the defendant and
presuming plaintiff’s entitled to the relief prayed for since the
defendant have not proved the contra case?
st
(8) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the 1
respondent herein has filed the suit for permanent injunction as against the
nd
appellant and the 2 respondent alleging that the suit property belong to his
grand-father, Kuppuswamy, the Government also granted Assignment Patta
dated 17.05.1974 for 3 cents and one cent was acquired by grand-father and
paid ‘B’ memo charges and thereby claims the suit property. In fact the suit
st
property originally belonged to Nagammal, mother of the appellant/ 1
defendant. The Thulasiammal is the elder sister of Nagammal and Nagammal is
the legal heir of Thulasiammal, thereby, the Nagammal is entitled to the suit
st
property and after the demise of Nagammal, the 1 defendant is in possession
and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff failed to prove his possession
over the property. The Assignment Patta was also only granted to an extent of 3
cents and the remaining one cent is a water body/ Vaikal Poromboke. Therefore
the plaintiff is not entitled for decree for permanent injunction. However, the
Courts below without considering the evidences in a proper perspective,
erroneously decreed the suit by granting permanent injunction as against the
st
appellant/1 defendant. The Courts below failed to consider that patta was
granted only for 3 cents and the one cent was classified as Vaikal Poromboke,
however granted permanent injunction for the entire property. The Courts
__________
Page6 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:06 pm )

SA No. 872 of 2012
st
below wrongly shifted the burden on the part of the 1 defendant to prove the
case and the plaintiff has not proved the Will in accordance with law and the
Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and the plaintiff, propounder
of the Will failed to dispel the suspicious circumstances. The Courts below
failed to consider that the suit for bare injunction without claiming relief of
declaration is not maintainable. However, the Courts below decreed the suit,
therefore the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below are liable to be
set aside.
(9) The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that originally the
suit property belonged to the grand-father of the plaintiff namely, Kuppuswamy,
who acquired the property and he was in possession and enjoyment of the
property. After his demise, the wife of Kuppusamy, Thulasiammal and his only
daughter Kiliammal were in possession and enjoyment of the property. The
Government granted Assignment Patta in favour of the said Kuppuswamy on
17.05.1974 to an extent of 3 cents and one cent was occupied by him and he had
also paid penal charges to the Government and thereby he had been in
possession and enjoyment of the 4 cents of the suit property. The said
Thulasiammal after the demise of her husband Kuppusamy executed a Will in
favour of the plaintiff on 21.02.1995. The said Thulasiammal died on
14.09.1998 and thereafter the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of
the property. The plaintiff examined the attesting witness of the Will and also
__________
Page7 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:06 pm )

SA No. 872 of 2012
produced the documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A11. Through those evidences, the
plaintiff has proved his case and the appellant being the defendant claiming the
property through his mother and no any documents is filed to prove his
contention. There is no illegality or perversity in the judgment and decree
passed by the Courts below. Therefore the Courts below have correctly decreed
the suit, thereby the Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed.
(10) This Court heard both the learned counsels and perused the records.
(11) For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties in this Second Appeal
will be referred to as plaintiff and defendant as per their rank in the Trial Court.
(12) The plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction as against the
defendant. According to the plaintiff, originally the suit property belonged to
his grand-father Kuppusamy and Government also granted Assigned Patta and
thereafter the said Kuppuswamy died interstate leaving behind his wife,
Thulasiammal and daughter, Kiliammal. The plaintiff is the son of Kiliammal.
After the demise of Kuppusamy the grant-mother of the plaintiff namely
Thulasiammal, executed a Will dated 21.02.1995 bequeathing the suit property
in favour of the plaintiff. The said Thulasiammal died on 14.09.1998, thereafter
the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. The
defendant denied the relationship between the Kuppuswamy and the plaintiff
__________
Page8 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:06 pm )

SA No. 872 of 2012
and according to the defendant, the Thulasiammal is not wife of Kuppusamy
and Kiliammal was not born to Kuppusamy. The Thulasiammal is none other
st
than the sister of 1 defendants mother. Originally the suit property belonged to
st
mother of the 1 defendant and she was in possession and enjoyment of the
st
property. After her demise, the 1 defendant is in possession and enjoyment of
the property, thereby he claiming the property through his mother. To prove the
case of the plaintiff, three witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and
marked 11 documents, Ex.A1 to Ex.A11. On the side of the defendant, one
witness D.W.1 was examined and marked 4 documents, Ex.B1 to Ex.B4.
(13) The plaintiff mainly claiming the property through Will executed by
Thulasiammal who is said to be the grand-mother of the plaintiff. In order to
prove the said Will, he also examined attesting witness. Though the defendant
denied the execution of the Will and entitlement of the property by
Thulasiammal, the plaintiff side witness had categorically deposed about
execution of the Will, thereby proved the execution and attestation of the Will
in accordance with law. Per contra, the defendant failed to prove his contention
that the property belonging to his mother. The plaintiff side evidence shows
that the patta was assigned to the plaintiff grand-father through Ex.A2 to an
extent of 3 cents. However the plaintiff filed suit for 4 cents. According to the
plaintiff, for another one cent he paid ‘B’ memo charges to the Government and
he has been in possession and enjoyment of the property. To prove his
__________
Page9 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:06 pm )

SA No. 872 of 2012
possession, he also filed Ex.A3 to Ex.A5, A8 to A10. Ex.A3 to Ex.A5, are
notices issued under Section 7 of the Act 3 of Chennai Patinam. Ex.A8 is the
tax receipt, Ex.A9 and Ex.A10 are the copy of the ration card. The above
documents shows that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the
property. Whereas the defendant failed to prove that he has been in possession
and enjoyment of the property.
st
(14) The main contention raised by the appellant/1 defendant is that as far as
one cent of land is concerned, it is a Vaikal Poromboke and the plaintiff
illegally occupied the property and he cannot claim any right over the property
and for the water body, he is not entitled to any relief. The plaintiff also not
denied that it is a Vaikal Poromboke, however the Government also already
issued notices from the year 1965. However, no steps have been taken by the
Government and it is for the Government to take appropriate steps in
accordance with law in respect of one cent of the property. The defendant who
is third party to the property cannot have any rights to question the possession
of the plaintiff over the one cent which is said to be Vaikal Poromboke.
However he is at liberty to take appropriate steps in accordance with law to
remove the encroachments in the water body, till such time, the plaintiff is
entitled to permanent injunction to protect his possession. It is well settled law
that even the trespassers can protect his possession from the third parties and he
has to be evicted in the manner known to law. Therefore the plaintiff has
__________
Page10 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:06 pm )

SA No. 872 of 2012
proved his case through sufficient documents and the Courts below have
correctly appreciated the facts and law and rendered concurrent findings. The
said findings by the Courts below are based on the available evidence.
(15) As far as the relief of permanent injunction without seeking declaration is
concerned, the plaintiff claiming the title over the property in respect of 3 cents
through Assignment Patta and not claiming right over the one cent of the
property by way of declaration. The defendant has no right over the property
and he has not filed any documents and thereby there is no cloud over the title
of the property and thereby without seeking declaration relief, mere suit for bare
injunction is maintainable. The plaintiff proved his title and possession of the
property in respect of 3 cents and possession in respect of one cent. Once the
plaintiff proved the case through sufficient evidence, it is for the defendant to
rebut the evidence by adducing contra evidence, but no contra evidence has
been adduced to rebut the plaintiff side evidence and thereby the Courts below
have rendered the concurrent findings that the plaintiff proved his case and
whereas the defendant failed to prove his case. The Courts below have not
shifted the burden on the side of the defendant and only after satisfying the case
of the plaintiff to rebut the evidence of the plaintiff, finds that the defendant
failed to prove his case and thereby the Courts below have not shifted the
burden on the side of the defendant and only in the sense of rebuttal evidence,
shifted the burden on the side of the defendant. Therefore the Substantial
__________
Page11 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:06 pm )

SA No. 872 of 2012
Questions of Laws are answered as against the appellant and the Courts below
rendered concurrent findings and this Second Appeal has no merits and
deserved to be dismissed.
(16) However, as far as one cent of the land belonging to the Government
Vaikal Poromboke is concerned, it is for the Government to take appropriate
steps in accordance with law. If the defendant aggrieved by the encroachment,
he can also take appropriate steps in accordance with law.
(17) With the above said observations, this Second Appeal is dismissed and
the Judgment and Decree granted in O.S.No.483 of 2001, on the file of the
Principal District Munsif Court, Alandur is hereby confirmed. No costs.
Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
28-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
dsn
To
1. The Judge,
Principal District Munsif Court,
Alandur.
2.The Sub-Judge,
Tambaram.
__________
Page12 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:06 pm )

SA No. 872 of 2012
P.DHANABAL J.
dsn
SA No. 872 of 2012
28-10-2026
__________
Page13 of 13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 01:27:06 pm )