ARUMUGAM vs JEEVANANDAM, S/O.CHIDAMBARA
- Court
- Madras High Court
2026:MHC:4450
SA(MD) No. 512 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 13-10-2026
Pronounced on : 03-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE THIRUMAGAL CHANDRASEKAR
SA(MD) No. 512 of 2014
CNR:{HCMD010844972014}
CMP(MD) No. 10734 of 2019 and MP(MD).No.3 of 2014
st
Arumugam .. 1 defendant / Appellant
Vs
1. Jeevanandam
st
.. 1 respondent / Plaintiff
2. V.Thulasi Brindha Devi
(R-2 Impleaded, Vide Court Odr. Dt.6.9.16 Made
in Cmp(md)6508/16 In Sa(md)512/14 By SSSRJ)
nd
... 2 respondent
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC against the Judgment
and Decree passed in Cross Appeal A.S.No.72 of 2007 dated 29.10.2007 on
the file of learned Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram confirming the
Judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.15 of 2004 dated 12.12.2006 on the
file of the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram.
__________
Page 1 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:34:09 pm )
2026:MHC:4450
SA(MD) No. 512 of 2014
For Appellant : Mr.C.Kasirajan
For Respondents : Mr.A. Sivaji - R1
Mr.P.T.S.Narendravasan – R2
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Decree
passed in Cross Appeal A.S.No.72 of 2007 dated 29.10.2007 on the file of
Subordinate Court, Ramanathapuram confirming the Judgment and decree
passed in O.S.No.15 of 2004 dated 12.12.2006 on the file of the District
Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Rameswaram.
2. The Brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The suit was instituted by the plaintiff seeking a declaration of
title and consequential permanent injunction in respect of the suit property,
or, in the alternative, partition and separate possession of the shares of the
plaintiff's vendors acquired under the sale deed Ex.A4 dated 29.11.1999.
The suit property, measuring 15 cents in total, originally belonged to
Haridoss, who acquired title thereto under a sale deed Ex.A1 dated
16.10.1976. On 20.06.1980, Haridoss settled the property in favour of his
wife, Selvarani, under a settlement deed marked as Ex.A2. Subsequently,
__________
Page 2 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:34:09 pm )
2026:MHC:4450
SA(MD) No. 512 of 2014
Haridoss and Selvarani jointly executed another settlement deed Ex.A3
dated 23.01.1982, settling the entire extent of 15 cents in favour of their
th
minor children, namely, the 4 defendant / Thulasi Brindadevi, Punitha
Devi and Durai Balaji.
(ii) The plaintiff claims title to an extent of 8½ cents under the sale
deed Ex.A4 dated 29.11.1999, which, according to the plaintiff, represents
the shares of Durai Balaji and Punitha Devi, two of the settlees under
Ex.A3. The said sale deed was executed in favour of the plaintiff by three
members Durai Balaji, the husband of Punitha Devi and her minor son. The
said Punitha Devi had died prior to the execution of Ex.A4, and her
husband and minor son purportedly conveyed the said extent to the
plaintiff.
(iii) The defendants set up rival claims over portions of the suit
th
property. The first defendant claims to have purchased 3 cents from the 4
defendant / Thulasi Brindadevi and Punitha Devi under a sale deed Ex.B2
dated 13.05.1994. The third defendant contends that Haridoss had agreed to
sell 3 cents situated in the middle portion of the property in his favour and
that, pursuant to the agreement of sale Ex.B7 dated 24.03.1994, he
constructed a house and has been residing therein. The fifth defendant
__________
Page 3 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:34:09 pm )
2026:MHC:4450
SA(MD) No. 512 of 2014
claims to have purchased 2 cents situated to the west of the portion claimed
by the plaintiff under a sale deed Ex.B8 dated 27.12.1991, executed by
Haridoss. The second defendant and the fourth defendant remained ex parte
before the trial Court and were also non-contestants in the appeal.
(iv) The plaintiff alleged that the defendants 1 to 5 attempted to
encroach upon the property purchased by him under Ex.A4, representing
the shares of Durai Balaji and Punitha Devi. Accordingly, the plaintiff
sought a declaration of title and consequential injunction or, in the
alternative, partition and separate possession of the shares of his vendors
claimed to have been conveyed to him.
(v) Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, P.W.1 and
P.W.2 were examined, and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked. On the side of the
defendant, D.W.1 to DW.5 were examined, and Exs.B1 to B28 were
marked.
(vi) The trial Court, upon considering the rival pleadings and
evidence, held that the title deeds relied upon by the plaintiff and
defendants 1 and 5, as well as the agreement of sale relied upon by the third
defendant, were invalid, as the alienations were impermissible under the
__________
Page 4 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:34:09 pm )
2026:MHC:4450
SA(MD) No. 512 of 2014
terms of the settlement deed Ex.A3 dated 23.01.1982, and accordingly
dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the plaintiff
preferred an appeal, while the first defendant filed a cross-appeal. The first
appellate Court dismissed both the appeal and the cross-appeal, thereby
confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
3. Challenging the findings of the Judgment passed in Cross Appeal,
st
the appellant / 1 defendant has preferred the present Second Appeal.
4. This Second Appeal was admitted by this Court on the following
substantial questions of law:
(1) Whether the Courts below are right by holding the
purchase of property by the appellant vide sale deed Exhibit B-
2 is not valid, when the same is not at all an issue in the suit?
(2) Whether the trial Court is justified by deciding the validity
of Exhibit B-2 without framing specific issue?
5. Heard Mr. C. Kasirajan, learned counsel appearing for the
st
Appellant / 1 defendant and Mr. A. Sivaji, learned counsel appearing for
st
the 1 respondent and Mr. P. T. S. Narendravasan, learned counsel
__________
Page 5 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:34:09 pm )
2026:MHC:4450
SA(MD) No. 512 of 2014
nd
appearing for the 2 respondent and perused the materials available on
record.
st
6. The suit was instituted by the 1 respondent/plaintiff seeking a
declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property,
or, alternatively, a preliminary decree for partition and separate possession
of 8½ cents claimed to have been purchased under Ex.A4 sale deed dated
29.11.1999. The suit property, measuring 15 cents, originally belonged to
Haridoss, who purchased it under Ex.A1 dated 16.10.1976 and
subsequently settled it in favour of his wife, Selvarani, under Ex.A2 dated
20.06.1980. Thereafter, Haridoss and Selvarani jointly settled the property
in favour of their minor children viz., Thulasi Brinda Devi, Punitha Devi
st
and Durairaj Balaji, under Ex.A3 dated 23.01.1982. The 1
respondent/plaintiff claimed to have purchased 8½ cents from the husband
st
of the deceased Punitha Devi and Durairaj Balaji. The appellant/ 1
defendant claimed title under a sale deed executed by Thulasi Brinda Devi
and another person, while the third defendant relied upon an agreement of
sale dated 24.03.1994 executed by Haridoss in respect of 3 cents in the
middle portion of the property. The fifth defendant claimed to have
purchased 2 cents from Haridoss under a sale deed dated 27.12.1991.
st
Alleging interference with his possession, the 1 respondent / plaintiff
__________
Page 6 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:34:09 pm )
2026:MHC:4450
SA(MD) No. 512 of 2014
instituted the suit seeking the aforesaid reliefs.
st
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / 1 defendant
submitted that the Courts below had failed to consider the legal effect of
Sections 10 and 11 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. According to the
learned counsel, a condition absolutely restraining the transferee from
alienating the property is void in law when an absolute interest has been
created in favour of the transferee. It was further submitted that the
st
appellant/ 1 defendant had purchased the property from Thulasi Brinda
Devi, one of the beneficiaries under Ex.A3, and that the restriction against
alienation during the lifetime of the settlors could not invalidate the
subsequent sale deed. In support of his contention the learned counsel for
st
the appellant / 1 defendant relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in 2019 SAR (Civil) 990 in the case of the State of
Andhra Pradesh and Others v. B. Ranga Reddy (D) by LRs and Others
and prayed for allowing the Second Appeal.
st
8. Since the appellant / 1 defendant has questioned the validity and
effect of the restriction against alienation, it is necessary to refer to the
relevant recitals in Ex.A2, the settlement deed executed by Haridoss in
favour of his wife, Selvarani. The material recital in Ex.A2, in substance,
__________
Page 7 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:34:09 pm )
2026:MHC:4450
SA(MD) No. 512 of 2014
provides that the settlor and his wife would jointly enjoy the property and
that, after the lifetime of the settlor, the wife would be entitled to enjoy the
property with absolute rights, including the right of alienation. It further
stipulates that, during the lifetime of the settlor, if any mortgage,
usufructuary mortgage, sale or other document concerning the property
were required to be executed, both the settlor and his wife should execute
the document jointly. Neither of them was permitted to execute such a
document independently, and any document executed in violation of the
said stipulation was stated to be invalid. The relevant recitals of Ex.A2, the
settlement deed, reads as follows:
" T.R. ,
டாக்டர் ஹரிதாஸ் ஆகிய நான்
அரியாங்குண்டில் வசிக்கும் என்னுடைய
, V.
மனை வியும் முத்து விநாயகம் அவர்களின்
R.I.M.P.
மகளுமான டாக்டர் செல்வராணிக்கு
எழுதிக் கொ டுத்த செட்டில்மெ ன்ட் பத்திரம்
:
என்னவெ ன்றால்
…
,
இன்று முதல் இதன் கீழே கண்ட சிறு நான்கு
0.15
மாலுக்குட்பட்ட செ ன்ட் நிலத்தை
என்னுடன் சே ர்ந்து நீரும் கூட்டாக
,
அனுபவித்து வந்து என் ஜீவியதசை க்குப்
, ,
பின்னால் நீர் சர்வ சுதந்திரப் பாத்தியமாய்
__________
Page 8 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:34:09 pm )
2026:MHC:4450
SA(MD) No. 512 of 2014
, ,
தானம் வினியோ கம் விற்கிரயம்
ஆகியவற்றிற்கு யோ க்கியமாக ஆண்டு
.
அனுபவித்துக்கொ ள்ள வே ண்டியது
….
,
என்னுடைய ஜீவியதசை க்குள் இதன் கீழே
, ,
கண்ட நிலத்தை அடமானம் ஒத்தி கிரையம்
போ ன்ற தஸ்தாவே ஜுகள் எழுதிக் கொ டுக்க
,
வே ண்டிய தே வை ஏற்பட்டால் அப்போ து
நானும் நீருமாகச் சே ர்ந்தே தஸ்தாவே ஜுகள்
.
எழுதிக் கொ டுக்க வே ண்டியது ஒருவரை
விட்டு ஒருவர் தனியாகப் பத்திரங்கள்
.
எழுதிக் கொ டுக்கக் கூடாது மீறி எழுதிக்
.
கொ டுத்தாலும் அது செ ல்லத்தக்கது அல்ல
….
இதன் கீழே கண்ட சிறு நான்கு
0.15
மாலுக்குட்பட்ட செ ன்ட் நிலத்தை ப்
பொ றுத்து எவ்வித வில்லங்கமும் இல்லை
,
என்று உறுதி கூறி என் மனை வியான
உமக்கு என் இஷ்டப்படியே இந்தச்
செ ட்டில்மெ ன்ட் பத்திரத்தை எழுதிக்
."
கொ டுத்திருக்கிறே ன்
9. The said Haridoss was examined as D.W.3 on behalf of the third
defendant. His deposition is material insofar as it relates to the execution of
Ex.A3, the alleged retention of possession, and the subsequent transactions
__________
Page 9 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:34:09 pm )
2026:MHC:4450
SA(MD) No. 512 of 2014
concerning the property. In his examination, D.W.3 stated, in substance,
that he and his wife had executed the settlement deed in favour of their
children. He further asserted that possession of the property had not been
handed over to the beneficiaries and that he continued to enjoy the property.
D.W.3 also stated that he had cancelled the settlement deed executed in
favour of his children through the office of the Sub-Registrar. During cross-
examination, he admitted that he had not obtained cancellation of the
settlement deed through a competent civil court. He also admitted that the
property-tax assessment and electricity connections continued in his name.
With regard to the third defendant's claim, D.W.3 deposed that he had
entered into an agreement of sale dated 24.03.1994 in respect of 3 cents
situated in the middle portion of the suit property, agreeing to sell the same
at the rate of Rs.20,000/- per cent and receiving an advance of Rs.12,500/-.
He further referred to a subsequent registered agreement dated 21.02.2002
and stated that the third defendant had constructed a house, a well and a
toilet and was enjoying the property. The testimony of D.W.3 establishes
his assertion that he continued in possession and purported to cancel the
settlement deed.
10. Section 10 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, deals with
conditions absolutely restraining alienation. The provision declares that,
__________
Page 10 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:34:09 pm )
2026:MHC:4450
SA(MD) No. 512 of 2014
where property is transferred subject to a condition or limitation absolutely
restraining the transferee, or any person claiming under the transferee, from
parting with or disposing of the interest in the property, such condition or
limitation is void, subject to the statutory exception relating to leases.
Section 11 of the Act deals with restrictions repugnant to the interest
created. Where an interest in property is created absolutely in favour of a
person, but the terms of the transfer direct that the interest shall be applied
or enjoyed in a particular manner, the transferee is ordinarily entitled to
receive and dispose of that interest as if there were no such direction,
subject to the statutory qualification contained in the section.
11. In the present case, Ex.A2 contains provisions concerning joint
enjoyment and the execution of documents during the lifetime of Haridoss.
Ex.A3 is the subsequent settlement deed jointly executed by Haridoss and
nd
Selvarani in favour of their children, including the 2 respondent herein
viz., Thulasi Brinda Devi. The rights of the beneficiaries and the validity of
the alienations relied upon by the parties must consequently be examined
with reference to the operative terms of Ex.A3, read in the context of the
earlier settlement deed. The evidence of D.W.3 regarding retention of
possession and unilateral cancellation cannot, by itself, determine whether
the settlement deed had validly created rights in favour of the beneficiaries.
__________
Page 11 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:34:09 pm )
2026:MHC:4450
SA(MD) No. 512 of 2014
Equally, the fact that the property-tax assessments or electricity connections
continued in the name of Haridoss would not, standing alone, conclusively
establish title in his favour.
st
12. The appellant / 1 defendant's claim is founded upon the sale
st
deed executed by one of the beneficiaries under Ex.A3. The 1
respondent / plaintiff, in turn, claims title to 8½ cents under Ex.A4, relying
upon the rights of his vendors under the same settlement deed. The trial
Court and the first appellate Court considered the rival documents and
concluded that the subsequent transactions were invalid in view of the
st
restrictions contained in Ex.A3. The appellant / 1 defendant has also failed
to establish that the sale deed upon which he relies conveyed a legally
enforceable interest in the particular portion claimed by him. A claim to a
specified portion of an unpartitioned property cannot automatically be
equated with exclusive title to that portion without examining the rights of
the other co-owners and the effect of the conveyance. Further, the assertion
of adverse possession cannot be accepted merely on the basis of long
possession or the existence of constructions. The necessary elements of
adverse possession must be established by legally sufficient evidence.
st
13. In the present case, the appellant / 1 defendant has not
__________
Page 12 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:34:09 pm )
2026:MHC:4450
SA(MD) No. 512 of 2014
established sufficient grounds to displace the concurrent findings of the
Courts below or to secure the relief claimed in the cross-appeal. The
evidence of D.W.3, considered along with the documentary evidence, does
st
not by itself establish the appellant / 1 defendant's exclusive title to the
disputed portion. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the
st
appellant / 1 defendant does not dispense with the requirement of
construing the settlement deed in question and establishing the nature of the
interest conveyed under the subsequent sale deed. The impleadment of the
nd
2 respondent herein viz., Thulasi Brinda Devi, does not, by itself, alter the
requirement to determine the rights of the parties in accordance with the
terms of Ex.A3 and the applicable law.
st
14. Though the appellant / 1 defendant contends that the Courts
below were not justified in holding Ex.B2 to be invalid when no specific
issue had been framed in that regard, the mere omission to frame a separate
issue would not, by itself, vitiate the adjudication, provided that the parties
were aware of the controversy, had an adequate opportunity to adduce
evidence, and no prejudice had been caused to either party. Nevertheless, a
finding on the validity of a document must be founded upon the pleadings,
the issues arising therefrom, and the evidence on record. In the present case,
having regard to the rival claims of title and the findings recorded by the
__________
Page 13 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:34:09 pm )
2026:MHC:4450
SA(MD) No. 512 of 2014
Courts below, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the Judgment and
Decree dated 29.10.2007 passed in Cross Appeal A.S.No.72 of 2007 on the
file of Subordinate Court, Ramanathapuram. Accordingly, the substantial
st
questions of law are answered against the appellant/1 defendant
15. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
03-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
T. RAJAPRABA
__________
Page 14 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:34:09 pm )
2026:MHC:4450
SA(MD) No. 512 of 2014
To
1. The Subordinate Judge, Ramanathapuram
2. The District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Rameswaram.
3. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madars High
Court, Madurai.
__________
Page 15 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:34:09 pm )
2026:MHC:4450
SA(MD) No. 512 of 2014
THIRUMAGAL CHANDRASEKAR, J.
T. RAJAPRABA
SA(MD) No. 512 of 2014
AND
CMP(MD) No. 10734 of 2019 and MP(MD).No.3 of 2014
03-11-2026
__________
Page 16 of 16
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:34:09 pm )