S.KRISHNAN(DIED) vs RAKKAMMAL(DIED)
- Court
- Madras High Court
SA(MD) No. 255 of 2014
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reserved on : 14-10-2026
Pronounced on : 05-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE THIRUMAGAL
CHANDRASEKAR
SA(MD) No. 255 of 2014
CNR:{HCMD010842692014}
MP(MD).Nos.1and 2 of 2014
1. S.Krishnan(died)
(Aa2to7 Are Brought On Record As Lrs Of
Deceased Sole Appelant, Vide C.O.Dt1/3/18
Made In Cmp.1328/18 In Sa.255/2013 By Sssrj.
2. Asodhai
3. Lakshmi
4. Amutha
5. Chellammal
6. Mahalingamn
7. Maruthupandi
..Appellants / Plaintiffs
Vs
1. Rakkammal(died)
2. Anburaj
__________
Page 1 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:33:29 pm )
SA(MD) No. 255 of 2014
3. Muniasamy
4. Siva
5. Kumaravel
6. Muthumaari
7. Tamilselvi
8. Bakiyalakshmi
9. Shanmugathai
Respondents 5 to 9 are brought on record as LRs
of the deceased 1st Respondent vide court order
dated 28.09.2026 made in CMP(MD) No.13654
of 2026 in SA(MD)No.255 of 2014 by TMCJ.
..Respondents / Defendants
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC against the
Judgment and Decree dated 26.09.2013 made in A.S.No. 66 of 2011 on
the file of the Subordinate Court, Sivagangai reversing the Judgment and
decree dated 18.02.2011 made in O. S. No.119 of 2008 on the file of the
Principal District Munsif Court, Manamadurai.
For Appellants :Mr. A. Sivaji
For respondents 2 to 9 : Mr. R.Santhanam
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and
__________
Page 2 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:33:29 pm )
SA(MD) No. 255 of 2014
Decree dated 26.09.2013 made in A.S.No. 66 of 2011 on the file of the
Subordinate Court, Sivagangai reversing the Judgment and decree dated
18.02.2011 made in O. S. No.119 of 2008 on the file of the Principal
District Munsif Court, Manamadurai.
2. The Brief Facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The case of the plaintiff is that the suit properties, consisting of
one punjai item and four nanjai items, originally belonged to his
grandfather, Late Sandhanam Servai, and thereafter devolved upon his
father, Late Sangili Servai, and subsequently upon the plaintiff by
succession. The plaintiff claimed that he had been in possession and
enjoyment of the suit properties along with his predecessors-in-title and
relied upon the patta standing in his name to establish his title and
possession. He further claimed to have perfected his title by long and
continuous possession. Alleging that the defendants had been attempting
to interfere with his possession and encroach upon the suit properties
from 20.08.2008, the plaintiff instituted the suit seeking the relief of
declaration of title and permanent injunction.
(ii) The defendants contested the suit, denying the plaintiff's title
__________
Page 3 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:33:29 pm )
SA(MD) No. 255 of 2014
and possession. According to them, the suit properties originally
belonged to one Sangili Servai, son of Sandhanam Servai, and were
acquired by him partly through purchase under sale deeds dated
18.08.1949 and 21.08.1951, while certain other properties were his
ancestral properties. They contended that, following the deaths of Sangili
Servai and his brother Pitchai without heirs, the properties devolved upon
their relatives and successors and ultimately came into the possession and
enjoyment of the defendants under a family arrangement. They further
claimed that patta had been issued in their names under Patta No.1005
and denied that the plaintiff had any right, title or possession over the suit
properties. They also raised objections regarding the maintainability of
the suit and non-joinder of necessary parties and sought dismissal of the
suit with costs.
(iii). Before the Trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff P.W.1 to
P.W.4 were examined and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. On the side of the
defendants, D.W.1 to D.W.3 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B27 were
marked.
(iv). Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the
Trial Court decreed the suit, declaring that the suit properties belonged to
__________
Page 4 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:33:29 pm )
SA(MD) No. 255 of 2014
the plaintiff and granting a permanent injunction restraining the
defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment
of the same. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court,
the defendants preferred an appeal and the same was allowed setting
aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
3. Challenging the judgment and decree of the First Appellate
Court, the appellant / plaintiff has preferred the present Second Appeal.
4. The present second appeal is admitted on the following
substantial questions of law:-
a) Has not the lower Appellate Court committed error
in law in holding that plaintiff is not the son of late Sangil1
Servai when no issue was framed by the trial Court?
b) Is not the Judgment of the lower Appellate Court
vitiated for not taking note of the materials on record to
sustain the plea of the plaintiff?
c) Is the lower Appellate Court justified in law in
holding that the plaintiff is not the son of late Sangili Servai
based on the postal acknowledgement cards and enquiry
notices when the revenue records and other documents
established that the plaintiff is the son of late Sangili
Servai?"
__________
Page 5 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:33:29 pm )
SA(MD) No. 255 of 2014
5. Heard Mr. A. Sivaji, learned counsel appearing for the appellants
/ plaintiffs and Mr. K. T. Arivukumar , learned counsel appearing for the
respondents 2 to 9 / defendants and perused the materials available on
record.
6. The appellant / plaintiff instituted the suit seeking the relief of
declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of five items of
properties. The case of the appellant / plaintiff is that the suit properties
originally belonged to his grandfather, namely, Sandhanam Servai, and
thereafter devolved upon his father, Sangili Servai, and subsequently
upon him by succession. According to the appellant / plaintiff, the suit
properties are ancestral properties, and he has been in possession and
enjoyment of the same along with his predecessors-in-title. He relied
upon the revenue records, particularly Patta No.195, standing in his
name, to substantiate his claim of title and possession. He further
contended that the respondents / defendants attempted to interfere with
his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and,
therefore, filed the suit for the aforesaid reliefs.
7. The respondents / defendants resisted the suit by contending that
__________
Page 6 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:33:29 pm )
SA(MD) No. 255 of 2014
the suit properties originally belonged to Sangili Servai, son of
Sandhanam Servai, who had acquired certain items through registered
sale deeds dated 18.08.1949 and 21.08.1951, while the remaining
properties were his ancestral properties. According to them, Sangili
Servai and his brother Pitchai Servai died issueless, and the properties
ultimately devolved upon their paternal uncle, Adhimoolam @
Periyampillai, and thereafter upon his legal heirs. The respondents /
defendants claimed that they had acquired rights over the suit properties
through succession and family arrangement and were in possession and
enjoyment of the same. They further contended that Patta No.195 had
been wrongly issued in the name of the appellant / plaintiff and, upon
their representation to the revenue authorities, the same was cancelled
and Patta No.1005 was issued in their favour.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / plaintiff
submitted that the suit properties originally belonged to the plaintiff's
grandfather viz., Sandhanam Servai, and thereafter devolved upon his
father, Sangili Servai. The plaintiff, being the legal heir of Sangili Servai,
succeeded to the properties and was in possession and enjoyment of the
same. Exs.A1 and A2, namely, the revenue records and patta particulars,
would establish the appellant / plaintiff's claim. He further contended that
__________
Page 7 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:33:29 pm )
SA(MD) No. 255 of 2014
the respondents / defendants had failed to establish their alleged
relationship with Sangili Servai and that the revenue authorities had
cancelled the appellant / plaintiff's patta and granted Patta No.1005 in
favour of the respondents / defendants without conducting a proper
enquiry. In support of his contention he relied upon the following
judgments:
(i) The Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
reported in 2004 (3) CTC 682 in the case of Jayaramdas
and Sons v. Mirza Rafatullah Baig and Others,
(ii) The Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 268 in the case of Sanjay
Kumar Singh v. The State of Jharkhand, and
(iii) The Judgment of this Court reported in 2026 (5)
CTC 257 in the case of D.M. Maheswaran v. M.
Parameswaran D. Mayandi (Died) and Others .
9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents /
defendants submitted that the appellant / plaintiff had failed to establish
the foundational fact that he was the son of Sangili Servai. According to
the respondents / defendants, the suit properties belonged to their
__________
Page 8 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:33:29 pm )
SA(MD) No. 255 of 2014
predecessor, Sangili Servai, and the same devolved upon them through
the family lineage of Adhimoolam @ Periyampillai. He further contended
that the appellant / plaintiff had not produced any acceptable
documentary evidence to establish his alleged relationship with Sangili
Servai and that the First Appellate Court had rightly appreciated the
evidence and reversed the judgment of the Trial Court.
10. It is not in dispute that the suit properties originally stood in the
name of Sangili Servai under Patta No.195. The first item of the suit
property was purchased by Sangili Servai under a sale deed dated
18.09.1949 from Muthu Irulappan. The second item is claimed to be his
ancestral property. The third item was purchased under a sale deed dated
31.08.1951. The fourth and fifth items are stated to have been purchased
from Karuppayee Ammal, a member of the family. Thus, the principal
controversy between the parties is not merely with regard to the original
ownership of the properties, but with regard to the identity and
relationship of the appellant / plaintiff with the said Sangili Servai and the
consequent devolution of the suit properties.
11. The respondents / defendants claimed that Sangili Servai and
his brother Pitchai Servai died issueless. Thereafter, the properties
__________
Page 9 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:33:29 pm )
SA(MD) No. 255 of 2014
devolved upon their paternal uncle, Adhimoolam @ Periyampillai. The
said Adhimoolam had two sons, namely, Veeru Servai and Krishnan. The
first defendant is the daughter of Veeru Servai, the second and third
defendants are her sons, and the fourth defendant is the grandson of
Krishnan. On the basis of the said relationship, the respondents /
defendants claimed title to the suit properties.
12. The appellant / plaintiff, on the other hand, specifically asserted
that his father was Sangili Servai and that his grandfather was Sandhanam
Servai. However, the appellant / plaintiff did not produce any
independent documentary evidence, such as a birth certificate, school
record, legal heirship document or any other acceptable record, to
establish that he was the son of the particular Sangili Servai who owned
the suit properties.
13. In this regard, the contents of the appellant / plaintiff's proof
affidavit assume significance. In the affidavit, the plaintiff stated:
" .
எனது தகப்பனார் பெயர் சங்கிலி சேர்வை ஆகும் எனது
தகப்பனார் சங்கிலி சேர்வை யை பெற்ற தாத்தாவின்
."
பெயர் சந்தனம் சேர்வை ஆகும்
__________
Page 10 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:33:29 pm )
SA(MD) No. 255 of 2014
The plaintiff further claimed that the suit properties originally belonged
to his grandfather and thereafter devolved upon his father and
subsequently upon him by succession. However, the appellant /
plaintiff's claim regarding the identity of his father was specifically
disputed by the respondents / defendants. They relied upon Exs.B1 to B3,
Ex.B7 and Ex.B16 to establish that the appellant / plaintiff was not the
son of the Sangili Servai who owned the suit properties.
14. Exs.B1 and B2 are postal acknowledgment cards addressed to
" / ".
கல்லுவீட்டு கிருஷ்ணன் த பெ செல்லம் Ex.B16 is another postal
acknowledgment card bearing the same description. Ex.B3 is the certified
copy of the plaint in O.S.No.121 of 2008, instituted by Ramachandran
against Rakkammal and others. These documents were relied upon by the
respondents / defendants to establish that the appellant / plaintiff was
described in certain proceedings and correspondence as Krishnan, son of
Chellam, and not as the son of Sangili Servai.
15. As per Ex.B7 the revenue authorities considered the earlier
revenue records and found that the relevant properties had originally
stood in the name of Sangili Servai under Patta No.195. The proceeding
also granted patta in favour of the respondents / defendants in respect of
__________
Page 11 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:33:29 pm )
SA(MD) No. 255 of 2014
the properties claimed by them. The First Appellate Court considered the
said proceedings along with the other documentary evidence, including
the revenue records and the materials relating to the defendants'
possession and enjoyment.
16. It is true that Exs.A1 and A2 reflect the revenue entries in the
name of Sangili Servai and subsequently in the name of the appellant /
plaintiff. However, the mere transfer of patta in the name of the
appellant / plaintiff would not, by itself, establish his relationship with the
original pattadharar or confer title upon him. The appellant / plaintiff was
required to establish the preliminary fact that he was the son and legal
heir of Sangili Servai who owned the suit properties. The revenue
records, though relevant for the purpose of possession and revenue
administration, cannot independently establish the disputed relationship
or confer title.
17. Though Exs.A1 and A2 disclose that the revenue records and
patta stood in the name of Sangili Servai and were subsequently
transferred in the name of the appellant / plaintiff, such entries by
themselves do not establish the appellant's filial relationship with Sangili
Servai. Revenue records are maintained primarily for fiscal and
__________
Page 12 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:33:29 pm )
SA(MD) No. 255 of 2014
administrative purposes and may constitute evidence of possession, but
they are not documents of title nor do they furnish proof of lineage or
succession. In the present case, when the very relationship between the
appellant / plaintiff and Sangili Servai was specifically disputed by the
respondents / defendants, it was incumbent upon the appellant / plaintiff
to produce independent and acceptable evidence establishing such
relationship. In the absence of any birth record, school record, legal
heirship certificate or contemporaneous public document evidencing the
said relationship, Exs.A1 and A2 cannot, by themselves, establish that the
appellant / plaintiff is the son of Sangili Servai.
18. The appellant / plaintiff's own evidence also assumes
importance. He had admitted in his proof affidavit that he was aware of
the distinction between the properties claimed as ancestral properties and
those purchased by his father. In particular, in paragraph 10 of his
affidavit, he stated that only the second item was ancestral property and
that the remaining items had been purchased by his father, Sangili Servai.
He further explained that the description of all the suit properties as
ancestral properties in the plaint was due to the manner in which the
plaint had been prepared. The above admission demonstrates that the
appellant / plaintiff's claim regarding the nature and source of title of the
__________
Page 13 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:33:29 pm )
SA(MD) No. 255 of 2014
suit properties was not entirely consistent with the original pleadings.
More particularly, notwithstanding his assertion that the properties were
purchased by his father, he did not produce any independent material to
establish that he was the legal heir of the purchaser, namely, Sangili
Servai.
19. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / plaintiff
contended that the respondents / defendants had not established their case
and that the Trial Court had rightly decreed the suit on the ground that the
respondents / defendants failed to prove that the appellant / plaintiff was
not the son of Sangili Servai. The said contention cannot be accepted.
The initial burden of establishing title rests upon the appellant / plaintiff,
who seeks a declaration of title. The appellant / plaintiff cannot succeed
merely on the weakness of the respondents / defendants' case. When the
respondents / defendants specifically disputed the appellant / plaintiff's
relationship with the original owner and produced documentary materials
in support of their contention, the burden remained upon the appellant /
plaintiff to establish his own claim by acceptable evidence.
20. In the present case, the respondents / defendants relied upon
Exs.B1 to B3 and Ex.B16, apart from the revenue proceedings under
__________
Page 14 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:33:29 pm )
SA(MD) No. 255 of 2014
Ex.B7, to dispute the appellant / plaintiff's identity and relationship. The
said documents had to be considered cumulatively along with the oral
evidence. The First Appellate Court, being the final Court of fact, has
undertaken such an exercise and found that the appellant / plaintiff had
failed to establish that he was the son of the Sangili Servai who owned
the suit properties. It is also relevant to note that the proceedings under
Ex.B7 refer to the existence of more than one person by the name of
Krishnan in the family.
21. The contention that no specific issue was framed by the Trial
Court regarding the relationship of the appellant / plaintiff with Sangili
Servai also requires consideration. Though the framing of appropriate
issues is an important procedural requirement, the absence of a specific
issue would not automatically vitiate the ultimate decision, particularly
when the parties were conscious of the controversy, adduced evidence on
the same and contested the matter before the Courts below. In the present
case, the relationship between the appellant / plaintiff and the original
owner was the fundamental controversy between the parties. Both sides
had an opportunity to adduce evidence in that regard. However, the Trial
Court had proceeded on the erroneous premise that the respondents /
defendants were required to establish that the appellant / plaintiff was not
__________
Page 15 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:33:29 pm )
SA(MD) No. 255 of 2014
the son of Sangili Servai and that their failure to establish the same was
sufficient to decree the suit. The Trial Court ought to have first examined
whether the appellant / plaintiff had discharged his initial burden of
proving his title and his relationship with the original owner.
22. The First Appellate Court, on the other hand, has considered
the oral and documentary evidence, particularly the admissions of P.W.1
and Exs.B1 to B3, B7 and B16, and arrived at a finding that the
appellant / plaintiff had failed to establish his relationship with the
original owner. The First Appellate Court has also taken note of the
respondents / defendants' claim of succession through Adhimoolam @
Periyampillai and the materials relating to their possession and
enjoyment.
23. The findings of the First Appellate Court are based upon the
appreciation of the evidence available on record. No perversity or legal
infirmity has been demonstrated in the said findings. The judgments
relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant / plaintiff do not
advance the appellant / plaintiff's case in the absence of proof of the
fundamental fact necessary to establish his title.
__________
Page 16 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:33:29 pm )
SA(MD) No. 255 of 2014
24. In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must succeed on
the strength of his own title and not on the weakness or alleged
deficiencies in the defence. In the present case, the appellant / plaintiff
has failed to establish that he is the son of the Sangili Servai who owned
the suit properties. Consequently, his claim of succession to the suit
properties also remains unproved. The subsequent issuance of patta in his
name cannot, by itself, cure the said deficiency.
25. The appellant / plaintiff has also alleged that he had perfected
title by long and continuous possession. However, no specific pleadings
containing the necessary ingredients of adverse possession have been
made. A plea of adverse possession must be clear, specific and
unequivocal, disclosing the commencement, nature and continuity of
hostile possession against the true owner. Moreover, a person claiming
title by succession cannot ordinarily assert hostile title against the very
estate from which he claims succession. In the present case, apart from a
bald assertion regarding long possession, no acceptable evidence has
been adduced to establish the ingredients of adverse possession. Hence,
the said plea is liable to be rejected.
26. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the
__________
Page 17 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:33:29 pm )
SA(MD) No. 255 of 2014
First Appellate Court has properly appreciated the oral and documentary
evidence and rightly reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.
The substantial questions of law are answered against the appellant /
plaintiff.
27. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgment
and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, setting aside the
judgment and decree of the Trial Court is confirmed. There shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are
closed.
05-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
T. RAJAPRABA
__________
Page 18 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:33:29 pm )
SA(MD) No. 255 of 2014
To
1. The Subordinate Court, Sivagangai
2. The Principal District Munsif Court, Manamadurai.
3. The Section Officer
VR Section
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai
__________
Page 19 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:33:29 pm )
SA(MD) No. 255 of 2014
THIRUMAGAL CHANDRASEKAR, J.
T. RAJAPRABA
SA(MD) No. 255 of 2014
05-11-2026
__________
Page 20 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:33:29 pm )
SA(MD) No. 255 of 2014
__________
Page 21 of 21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 04:33:29 pm )