Jayalakshmi Ammal vs Rajendran

SA No. 18 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
SA No. 18 of 2023 &
SA NO. 20 OF 2023
CNR:{HCMA010528672022}
AND
CMP NO. 479 OF 2023 &
CMP NO. 482 OF 2023
Jayalakshmi Ammal
W/o.Subramani,
Eraiyur Village and Post,
Vanur Taluk, Villupuram District
..Appellant(s) in
both S.A.s
Vs
1. Rajendran
S/o.Varnamuth,
Eraiyur Village and Post, Vanur Taluk,
Villupuram District.
2. Anjali
W/o.Rajendran,
Eraiyur Village and Post, Vanur Taluk,
Villupuram District
..Respondent(s) in
both S.A.s
PRAYER IN SA No. 18 of 2023
Second Appeal filed under Sec.100 of C.P.C., praying to set aside the
Judgement and Decree of the Learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam
in AS No.21 of 2015 dated 26.11.2021 partly allowing and partly reversing the
Judgement and Decree of the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate,
Vanur in OS No.6 of 2005 dated 29.06.2015.
__________
Page1 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 06:19:52 pm )

SA No. 18 of 2023
PRAYER IN SA No. 20 of 2023
Second Appeal filed under Sec.100 of C.P.C., praying to set aside the
Judgement and Decree of the Learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam
in Cross Appeal No. 41 of 2015 in AS No.21 of 2015 dated 26.11.2021 partly
allowing and partly reversing the Judgement and Decree of the learned District
Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Vanur in OS No.6 of 2005 dated 29.06.2015.
In both SAs
For Appellant(s): Mr.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran
For Respondent(s): Mr.N.Suresh For R2
R1 --died
COMMON JUDGMENT
Challenging the findings of the first appellate court, the plaintiff had
preferred these Second Appeals.
2. For the sake of convenience, both parties are denoted as per the ranking
in the suit.
3. Before the trial court, the plaintiff had filed the suit for declaration and
the consequential relief of injunction in respect of Item Nos.1 and 2 of suit
property. The item no.1 is pertaining to Plot No.46 and item No.2 is pertaining
to Plot No.45. She claimed right and title in respect of both properties and stated
that the defendants have caused interference. Accordingly, she came forward
with the suit for the relief of declaration.
__________
Page2 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 06:19:52 pm )

SA No. 18 of 2023
4. The said suit was contested by the defendants stating that in respect of
item No.1 (Plot No.46), he has no objection, but he raised objections in respect
of item No.2 (Plot No.45). He further contended that he purchased the said
property for a valid consideration and claimed as absolute owner in respect of
item No.2 (Plot No.45). Both parties have adduced evidence. On hearing both
sides, the suit was decreed partly and the same was confirmed by the first
appellate judge declaring that in respect of item No.1 (Plot No.46), the plaintiff
is having valid sale deed, thereby held that item No.1 (Plot No.46) is belong to
the plaintiff by way of purchase, but the claim of the plaintiff in respect of item
No.2 (plot No.45), she claimed right based on an unregistered sale deed, which
is not sustainable in law, since it requires valid registration. Therefore, it would
not confer valid right and title. However, the courts below observed that the
plaintiff is in possession of item No.2 also. Therefore, the relief of permanent
injunction alone was granted. The claim of defendants also not accepted by the
trial court holding that the sale deed in respect of item No.2 (plot No.45) has not
been proved.
5. Aggrieved over that findings, the defendants have preferred an appeal in
Appeal Suit No.21 of 2015 and the plaintiff had filed the Cross-Appeal in
Cros.A. No.41 of 2015. The first appellate judge on hearing both sides, framed
separate points for consideration and finally held that the plaintiff failed to
__________
Page3 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 06:19:52 pm )

SA No. 18 of 2023
prove her right and title in respect of item No.2 (plot No.45), however, the
defendants proved that they are having valid right and title in respect of item
No.2 (plot No.45) by relying title deed and also observed that the defendants are
in possession of item No.2 (plot No.45). Therefore, the Appeal Suit filed by the
defendants in A.S.No.21 of 2015 was partly allowed and the appeal suit filed by
the plaintiff in A.S.No.41 of 2015 was dismissed as she is not entitled for the
relief of declaration in respect of item No.2 (plot No.45). Aggrieved over that
findings, the plaintiff had preferred both the Second Appeals.
6. Brief facts of the case is as follows:-
The plaintiff claiming right over the property. Based on the purchase, she
stated that plot Nos.45 and 46 in Survey No.203/1 originally belongs to one
Munusamy and Duraisamy. After the demise of Munusamy, his legal heirs have
sold the property in favour of plaintiff through the sale deed dated 10.05.1994.
She had also contended that from Duraisamy’s daughter Govindammal, she
purchased Plot No.45 through unregistered sale deed dated 14.05.1994. After
the purchase, she is in possession and enjoyment of entire suit property. Due to
the previous enmity, the defendants caused interference. Therefore, she came
forward with the suit.
7. The case of defendants is that the suit property is the poramboke land and
plot No.45 was assigned by the Government to one Duraisamy and after his
__________
Page4 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 06:19:52 pm )

SA No. 18 of 2023
st
demise, legal heirs of Duraisamy sold the plot No.45 to 1 defendant through
valid registered sale deed on 20.09.2004. Eversince, he is in possession and
enjoyment of the property. Therefore, he is disputing the plaintiff’s claim in
respect of item No.2 (plot no.45) stating that the unregistered sale deed would
not confer any right and title in favour of plaintiff. Hence, he prayed to dismiss
the suit in respect of item no.2 (plot No.45).
8. Both parties have adduced their oral and documentary evidence. On
considering the same, the trial judge held that based on the Sale deed marked as
Ex.A1, the plaintiff perfected right and title in respect of item No.1 (plot
No.46). In respect of item No.2 (Plot No.45), the trial judge held that an
unregistered sale deed marked as Ex.A2 would not confer any right, since the
document is unregistered and it requires valid registration by relying the ratio
laid down in the authority reported in AIR 2003 SC 1905 in the case of Bondar
Singh and others vs. Nihal singh and others. The trial judge had also held
that the document is not admissible for the lack of registration, but in respect of
possession, it can be taken into consideration as a collateral purpose.
Accordingly, the trial judge had held that the plaintiff is in possession of both
properties. Therefore, the relief of declaration was granted in respect of item
No.1 (plot No.46) and in respect of item No.2 (plot No.45), the injunction was
granted and also rejected the claim of defendants, who claimed right and title
over the property based on the sale deed Ex.B5. But the trial judge held that
__________
Page5 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 06:19:52 pm )

SA No. 18 of 2023
Ex.B5 was not proved by examining one of the attestor, since the said document
was denied by the plaintiff. Aggrieved over the said findings, both the plaintiff
and defendants have preferred Appeals. Against the dismissal of declaration in
respect of item No.2 (plot No.45), the plaintiff had preferred Cross Appeal in
Cros.A.No. 41 of 2015 and in respect of findings given against the defendants in
respect of item No.2 (plot No.45), the defendants have preferred Appeal in
A.S.No.21 of 2015.
9. Both the appeals were tried jointly by the first appellate court and framed
separate points for consideration. Considering the evidence on record, the first
appellate judge had held that as per Ex.A3 assignment order given by the
Government, the Patta land was given to poor people. Accordingly, plot no.45
was assigned to Duraisamy and Plot No.46 was assigned to his brother
Theerthamalai. The plaintiff purchased plots from the legal heirs of Munusamy
viz., Plot No.46, but the plaintiff claimed right over both plot Nos.45 and 46
stating that she had purchased the same through unregistered document, which
was not accepted by the first appellate court holding that an unregistered Sale
deed Ex.A2 would not confer title and it is apparently seen that the document is
is not genuine and valid document for the reason that the stamp paper was
purchased in the year 1987, but it was written only in the year 1994 after the
period of seven years. So, the said document Ex.A2 is not genuine one and it
was not accepted and also held that the document has also been not registered.
__________
Page6 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 06:19:52 pm )

SA No. 18 of 2023
Therefore, the claim made by the plaintiff based on the unregistered sale deed
Ex.A2 is not acceptable one, even it cannot be used for collateral purpose. Since
it is not properly stamped and genuineness has also not been proved. Therefore,
the first appellate judge has held that injunction granted in respect of second
item by the trial judge also erroneous one. Accordingly, the Cross-Appeal filed
by the plaintiff was dismissed. By relying Sale deed Ex.B5, the first appellate
judge has held that it is a registered document, which need not be proved by
examining attestor as observed by the trial judge and Ex.B5 on the face of
record proves that it is a valid document, since Govindammal, vendor is having
valid right and title as a legal heir of Duraisamy. Accordingly, the first appellate
judge held the Ex.B5 as a valid document, thereby the defendants perfected
right and title in respect of item No.2 (Plot No.45). Based on that, the appeal
preferred by the defendants in Appeal Suit No.21 of 2015 was allowed. Now,
challenging the said findings, the plaintiff preferred these Second Appeals.
10. The learned counsel for appellant argues that the courts below failed to
take note of the fact that as on date, the plaintiff is in possession of item No.2
(Plot No.45), which was rightly observed by the trial court, but the first
appellate court failed to appreciate the same and erroneously held that the
defendants perfected right and title, thereby they are having right and title in
respect of item No.2 (plot No.45) as such is erroneous one. Hence, he prayed to
set aside the findings of the courts below.
__________
Page7 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 06:19:52 pm )

SA No. 18 of 2023
11. The learned counsel for respondents argue that there is no substantial
question of law for consideration of both Second Appeals, since the plaintiff has
failed to prove her right and title in respect of item No.2 (plot No.45) and
rightly held that an unregistered document would not confer right and title.
Based on that, the courts below had granted the relief in favour of defendants as
such is sustainable in law. Hence, he prayed to dismiss these Second Appeals.
12. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as considering
submissions made by both learned counsel for appellant and respondents, both
the Second Appeals are admitted on the following substantial question of law :-
(i) Whether the decree of the lower appellate court that plaintiff
is not entitled to the relief of declaration and injunction in respect of
suit item II is legally sustainable when the appellant has proved the
title and possession over suit item I?
(ii) Whether the decree of the courts below are sustainable in
denying the relief of plaintiff’s title over the suit item II, at the instance
of defendants, who have not established that they are the true owners,
but admits the title of the plaintiff’s vendor (Govindammal)?
(iii) Whether the courts below are correct in overlooking the
principle “Title follows possession” with vacant lands such as item 2
__________
Page8 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 06:19:52 pm )

SA No. 18 of 2023
of suit property especially when neither of the parties cleared the
cloud over the title, but the plaintiff proved possession over the same?
13. On seeing the facts, it is seen that in respect of item no.1 (plot No.46),
there is no dispute. The disputed property is only with respect to item no.2 (plot
No.45). The plaintiff claimed right based on the unregistered sale deed marked
as Ex.A2. The defendants claimed right based on the sale deed Ex.B5. The
contention of plaintiff is that Ex.A2, an unregistered document given by
daughter of Duraisamy in the year 1994 and eversince, she is in possession of
the property. Admittedly, Duraisamy was assigned with plot No.45 by the
Government, after his demise, Govindammal, his legal heir enjoyed the
property. The plaintiff claimed that she purchased the property from
Govindammal through unregistered sale deed Ex.A6. The defendants have also
claimed right over Plot No.45 based on the registered Sale deed Ex.B5. As per
Sec.17 of Registration Act, it requires compulsory registration valued for more
than 100 rupees in immovable property. The plaintiff contended that she had
paid the sale consideration of Rs.675/-, but failed to register the document.
Therefore, the unregistered document would not confer any right. Furthermore,
the first appellate judge has held that the unregistered document itself is not
genuine one as stamp papers were manipulated for unlawful purpose. Therefore,
the unregistered sale deed Ex.A2 is not valid document nor it confers any valid
right. Hence, the findings rendered by the first appellate court requires no
__________
Page9 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 06:19:52 pm )

SA No. 18 of 2023
st
interference. The title following possession, the defendants proved that the 1
defendant purchased the property in respect of item No.2 (Plot No.45) for a
valid consideration through Ex.B5, besides the defendants produced receipts,
which shows that they are in possession the property. Therefore, the defendants
st
proved that the 1 defendant is the absolute owner of item No.2 (plot No.45).
Hence, the first appellate court rightly allowed the appeal filed by the
defendants in A.S.No.21 of 2015 and also rightly dismissed the appeal in
A.S.No. 41 of 2015 filed by the plaintiff, which requires no interference.
Accordingly, the question of law (1) to (3) are answered. Accordingly, both the
Second Appeals are dismissed. The relief claimed in the suit in O.S.No..6 of
2005 in respect of item No.1 (plot No.46) is decreed and the relief in respect of
item No.2 (plot No.45) is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Civil
Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.

30-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
RPP
To
1. The Principal Subordinate Court, Tindivanam.
2. The District Munsif, Vanur.
3. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court.
__________
Page10 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 06:19:52 pm )

SA No. 18 of 2023
T.V.THAMILSELVI J.
RPP
SA No. 18 of 2023
& SA NO. 20 OF 2023
AND
CMP NO. 479 OF 2023 &
CMP NO. 482 OF 2023
30-10-2026
__________
Page11 of 11
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 06:19:52 pm )