P.K.RANGASWAMY CHETTIAR(died) vs V.NARAYANASWAMI MUDALIAR
- Court
- Madras High Court
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 09 / 06 / 2026
JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON : 02 / 09 / 2026
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
st
1.P.K.Rangaswamy Chettiar (Died) … 1 Appellant /
nd
2 Appellant /
nd
2 Plaintiff
2.T.Natarajan
3.P.T.Damodaran
4.T.Lakshmanan
5.Ambika … Appellants 2 to 5/
Appellants 3 to 6/
Legal representatives of
st
deceased 1 Plaintiff
P.R.Annandraj (deceased)
S/o P.K.Rangasamy Chettiar
6.Chitra,
W/o Late P.R.Annandraj,
Kembanna Street, Punjai Puliampatti Village,
Sathyamangalam Taluk,
Erode District. – 638459.
7.Annanda Priya
D/o Late P.R.Anandraj,
1166, Aravinda Nagar,
Kuvempu Nagar,
Mysore-570023.
Page No.1 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
8.Annanda Kanna
S/o late P.R.Annandraj,
Kembanna Street, Punjai Puliampatti Village,
Sathyamangalam Taluk,
Erode District. – 638459. … Appellants 6 to 8/
Legal representatives of
st
deceased 1 Appellant.
Note: First Appellant passed away.
Appellant Nos.6 to 8 are brought
on record as legal representatives
of the deceased first Appellant vide
this Court’s Order dated September
24, 2025 made in C.M.P.
Nos.7649, 7658 and 7655 of 2022
in S.A. No.204 of 1999.
Versus
1.V.Narayanaswami Mudaliar
S/o.Vaiyapuri Mudaliar,
Thiru Vi Ka Street Junction,
Punjai Puliyampatti, Sathy Taluk
2.V.Palanichamy
S/o.Vaiyapuri Mudaliar,
Peon, Government Boys Higher
Secondary School,
Punjai Puliyampatti,
Sathi Taluk.
3.V.Chokkan Mudaliar
S/o.Vaiyapuri Mudaliar,
Doctor, K.S.S.M. Mani Homeopathy,
Kattuvalarau, Thiruppur.
4.V.Arumuga Mudaliar
S/o.Vaiyapuri Mudaliar,
Anna Street, Punjai Puliyampatti,
Sathy Taluk.
Page No.2 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
5.P.Sukumaran
S/o.Palaniappa Mudaliar,
Anna Street, Punjai Puliyampatti,
Sathy Taluk.
6.P.S.Loganathan
S/o.Palaniappa Mudaliar,
Golden Watch Works,
Bazaar Street, Satyamangalam.
7.Kanthimathi
W/o.Simasundaram
Golden Watch Works,
Bazaar Street,
Satyamangalam.
8.P.Krishnan
S/o.Palaniappa Mudaliar,
Devarapalayam,
Rakipalayam P.O.
Avinashi Taluk
9.S.Murugan
S/o.P.Sadasivam,
15, 2nd Street, Valayankadu,
Gandhi Nagar, Tiruppur.
10.Sivachalam
S/o.Rangaswamy,
Erumakattupalayam,
Malloor Village,
Sathy Taluk
11.Sarojini
W/o.P.A.Krishna Chettiar,
Erumakattupalayam,
Malloor Village,
Sathy Taluk.
Page No.3 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
12.Subban odayar (Died)
S/o.Kandappa odayar,
Punjampuliyampatti, Sathy Taluk.
13.Chakravarthy
S/o.P.Somasundaram,
18, Cotton, Kasa Street, Sathyamangalam.
14.Poongodi
W/o.Parthiban
18, Cotton, Kasa Street,
Sathyamangalam.
15.Thangammal
W/o.Late.Marappan
P.N.Road, Raja Nagar,
Poyampalayam, Thiruppur
16.Nagaraj
S/o.Late.Marappan
P.N.Road, Raja Nagar,
Poyampalayam, Thiruppur
17.Nagarani
W/o.Thangavel
Kamaraj Nagar, Aripalayam, Udumalpet.
18.Selvi
W/o.Ganesan
F21, Bharathipuram Palladam Taluk. … Respondents 1 to 18 /
Respondents 1 to 5,
7, 8, 10 to 20 /
Defendants 1 to 5, 7,
8, 10 to 12, 14 to 21
19.Jothi Kannammal
W/o.P.Marimuthu
Anna Street,
Punjampuliyampatti,
Sathy Taluk.
Page No.4 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
20.M.Vadivel
Anna Street,
Punjampuliyampatti, Sathy Taluk.
21.M.Sathya
Anna Street,
Punjampuliyampatti, Sathy Taluk.
22.M.Poonkothai
Anna Street,
Punjampuliyampatti, Sathy Taluk.
23.M.Shanthi
Anna Street,
Punjampuliyampatti, Sathy Taluk.
24.Pasupathy
S/o.Chidambaram
Nehru Nagar, Punjampuliyampatti,
Sathy Taluk.
25.Ganapathy
S/o.Chidambaram
Nehru Nagar Punjampuliyampatti,
Sathy Taluk.
26.Satya
W/o.S.Gunasekaran
15, Bajanai Koil Street, Pudupalayam,
Gobi Town. … Respondents 19 to 26/
Respondents 21 to 28/
th
Legal representatives of 6
th
& 9 defendants.
27.Mrs.Indrani
W/o.Dr.V.Thangavelu
No.10, Kalidas Road, Ramnagar,
Coimbatore 641 009.
Page No.5 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
28.S.Gnanapandithan
S/o.Mr.Subban Udayar,
Subban Udayar Compound,
Thiru.Vee.Ka Street,
Mathampalayam Road,
Punjai Puliampatti - 638459
29.S.Karthikayan
S/o.Mr. Subban Udayar
Subban Udayar Compound,
Thiru.Vee.Ka Street,
Mathampalayam Road,
Punjai Puliampatti – 638459
30.S.Dhandapani
S/o.Late.Subban Udayar
Subban Udayar Compound,
Thiru.Vee.Ka Street,
Mathampalayam Road,
Punjai Puliampatti – 638459. … Respondents 27 to 30/
legal representatives
th
of deceased 12
Respondent
Note : Respondent-12 passed
away. Respondent Nos.27 to 30
are brought on record as legal
representatives of the deceased
Respondent-12 vide this Court’s
Order dated March 27, 2023 made
in C.M.P. Nos.11163, 11006 and
11156 of 2021 in S.A. No.204 of
1999.
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, praying to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated
November 16, 1998 made in A.S. No.43 of 1996 on the file of the
Subordinate Court, Gobichettipalayam, confirming the Judgment and
Page No.6 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
Decree dated November 01, 1993 made in O.S. No.832 of 1987 on the file
of the District Munsif, Satyamangalam.
For Appellants : Mr.Srinath Sridevan
Senior Counsel assisted by
Mr.T.Girish.
For Respondents - 1&8 : Passed away, steps due.
For Respondents 2 to 6,
9 to 11, 19 and 20 : Given up.
For Respondent – 12 : Passed away, steps taken
For Respondents-7,
13 to 18, R21 to 24, 26 : Served – No appearance
For Respondent – 25 : Not ready in notice
For Respondents – 27 to 30: Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel
J U D G M E N T
Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree dated November 16,
1998 passed in A.S. No.43 of 1996 on the file of 'the Sub Court,
Gobichettipalayam' ['First Appellate Court' for short], whereby the
Judgment and Decree dated November 1, 1993, made in O.S. No.832 of
1987 by 'the District Munsif Court, Sathyamangalam' ['Trial Court' for
short] dismissing the Original Suit was confirmed, the appellants /
plaintiffs therein has preferred this Second Appeal under Section 100 of
'the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908' ['CPC' for short].
Page No.7 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be
referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.
PLAINTIFFS' CASE
3. Total extent in old Survey No.292 of Nallur Village is 6
Acres 33 Cents, out of which, 1 Acre 49 Cents comprised in sub-division
'A' thereof i.e., in old Survey No.292A. Similarly, 2 Acres 28 Cents
comprised in old Survey No.292B and 2 Acres 56 Cents comprised in old
Survey No.292C. The extent of 2 Acres 28 Cents in old Survey No.292B is
the Suit 'A' schedule property herein.
3.1. One Rangi Chettiar son of Thimmi Chettiar purchased ¼
share in the Suit 'A' schedule property and some more properties not
related to the suit, from Kempana Gounder son of Mookana Gounder vide
sale deed dated July 24, 1922. On September 22, 1947, Rangi Chettiar's
son - Kumara Chettiar executed a registered Settlement Deed in respect of
his family properties including ¼ share in Suit 'A' schedule property, in
favour of his two sons / plaintiffs - R.K.Thimmi Chettiar and
R.K.Rangasamy Chettiar. Whereafter, the plaintiffs are in possession and
enjoyment of the same. Revenue records were mutated in their name.
Page No.8 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
3.2. The defendants 1 to 12 are co-owners of the Suit 'A'
schedule property. Plaintiffs are jointly entitled to 57 Cents i.e., ¼ share in
Suit 'A' schedule property. Defendants 1 to 4 are jointly entitled to ¼
share therein; Defendants 5 to 8 are jointly entitled to ¼ share therein; and
Defendants 9 to 12 are collectively entitled to the remaining ¼ share
therein.
3.3. The Suit 'A' schedule property is a dry land and had not
been partitioned by metes and bounds. The parties entered into a temporary
arrangement for the sake of convenience and separate enjoyment, whereby
the Suit 'A' schedule property was roughly divided into four portions; the
northern side thereof was divided into two portions and similarly, the
southern side was also divided into two portions, totally four portions.
Under such arrangement, western portion of the northern side went to the
share of the family of defendants 1 to 3; eastern portion of the northern
side went to the family of defendants 4 to 8; western portion of the
southern portion went to the plaintiffs, which has been described as Suit 'B'
schedule property herein; and eastern part thereof went to defendants 9 to
12.
Page No.9 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
3.4. Subsequently, during Re-Survey, the Suit 'A' schedule
property was wrongly registered, as if the plaintiffs' ¼ share in the western
portion of southern side of old Survey No.292B i.e., the Suit 'B' schedule
property, was comprised in old Survey No.292C and belonged to late
T.Rangasamy Chettiar. Said late T.Rangasamy Chettiar's legal heirs are
defendants 13 and 14 herein. It is true that said late T.Rangasamy Chettiar
owned the entire extent of 2 Acres 56 Cents in old Survey No.292C. But he
was declared insolvent by Court and his entire property in old Survey
No.292C was sold off in Court auction sale in the year 1972 i.e., before
Re-Survey, and the same was purchased by one Chinnaya Gounder, who in
turn sold the same to the fifteenth defendant herein in the year 1973.
Neither late T.Rangasamy Chettiar nor his successors had any title, right or
interest in old Survey No.292B. While so, as stated in the beginning of this
paragraph, the Suit 'B' schedule property was wrongly registered in the
name of T.Rangasamy Chettiar as if it belonged to him in old Survey
No.292C. Pursuant to the erroneous registration under Re-Survey Scheme,
patta in respect of Suit 'B' schedule property was wrongly issued in the
name of T.Rangasamy Chettiar. Relevant particulars are as shown in the
following table:
Page No.10 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
Old
Survey
Re-Survey
S.
No.
Patta issued
Extent Remarks
No. in favour of
No.
0.20.5
Hectare
[51 Cents]
Defendants 1
No dispute by
1. 292B 305/3
to 3
plaintiffs
0.24.5
Hectare
[60 Cents]
Defendants 4
2. 292B 305/4
"
to 8
0.25.0
Hectare
[65 Cents]
Defendants 9
3. 292B 305/5
"
to 12
Accordingly to
plaintiffs, it is the
property in old
Survey No.292B
and patta ought to
have been issued in
favour of plaintiffs.
Total:
0.84.5
Hectares
0.14.5
Hectare
[36 Cents]
T.Rangasamy
4. 292B 305/6A
Chettiar
3.5. Taking advantage of the mistake in Re-Survey Scheme
and the resultant erroneous patta, after the demise of T.Rangasamy
Chettiar, his wife and daughter namely defendants 13 and 14, executed a
Sale Deed dated January 29, 1987 in favour of fifteenth defendant as if
Re-Survey No.305/6A truly belonged to them.
3.6. Hence, the plaintiffs submitted an application to rectify the
aforesaid mistake that occurred during the Re-Survey. The concerned
authorities refused to rectify the mistake and advised the plaintiffs to
Page No.11 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
rectify the same through Civil Court proceedings. Pursuantly, the plaintiffs
filed an earlier Suit in O.S. No.7 of 1987 against defendants 13 to 15
herein, which was withdrawn to file the present comprehensive Suit. In the
present Suit, the plaintiffs seek declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to
1/4 share in the Suit 'A' schedule property, divide the Suit 'A' schedule
property into 4 equal shares and allot one such share to the plaintiffs and
deliver possession thereof. Alternatively, the plaintiffs seek declaration of
their title in respect of the Suit 'B' schedule property and delivery of
possession thereof. That's the case of the plaintiffs.
DEFENDANTS 1 TO 12, 18 AND 19
4. Defendants 1 to 12, 18 and 19 remained ex-parte before the
Trial Court.
CASE OF DEFENDANTS 13 TO 15
5. Thirteenth defendant filed a written statement on February
28, 1989 and the same was adopted by defendants 14 and 15. In addition to
the above, the fifteenth defendant filed an additional written statement on
April 7, 1993.
Page No.12 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
5.1. Sum and substance of their case as it could be culled out
from their written statements and their evidence is that Rangi Chettiar had
one son - Kumara Chettiar and one daughter - Rangammal. Kumara
Chettiar's sons are the plaintiffs. Rangammal's son is the said T.Rangasamy
Chettiar, whose wife is thirteenth defendant - Venkattammal, daughter is
fourteenth defendant - Sarojini. Defendants 13 to 15 allege that said
Venkattammal, wife of T.Rangasamy Chettiar is none other than the sister
of plaintiffs. In other words, plaintiffs' sister - Venkattammal married her
cousin - T.Rangasamy Chettiar. They admit that Rangi Chettiar purchased
57 Cents (¼ share) in old Survey No.292B and that it later fell into the
hands of the plaintiffs' father - Kumara Chettiar. But they denied the
alleged Settlement Deed dated September 22, 1947 executed by Kumara
Chettiar in favour of the plaintiffs, and also denied the plaintiffs'
possession and enjoyment of the ¼ share in the Suit 'A' schedule property.
5.2. They contend that about 40 years prior to the Suit (Suit
filed on April 30, 1987), plaintiffs and their father - Kumara Chettiar gave
up their rights in old Survey No.292B in favour of T.Rangasamy Chettiar,
who is not only the plaintiffs' cousin but also their sister's husband.
Pursuantly, the same was enjoyed by him during his lifetime, whereafter it
was enjoyed by his legal heirs namely defendants 13 and 14 who then sold
Page No.13 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
it to the fifteenth defendant in the year 1987. Considering T.Rangasamy
Chettiar's possession of Suit 'B' schedule property, patta under Re-Survey
Scheme was granted in his favour in respect of the same.
5.3. Further, defendants 13 to 15 admit that T.Rangasamy
Chettiar owned the entire extent of 2 Acres 56 Cents in old Survey
No.292C which was eventually sold off in Court auction sale to one
Chinnaiyan who in turn sold the same to the fifteenth defendant. They also
admit the oral partition of Survey No.292B for convenient enjoyment as
stated in the plaint. Further, they claim that the Suit is barred by limitation
as it is filed after 12 years from the re-survey. It is further stated that the
fifteenth defendant obtained lawful possession of Re-Survey No.305/6A on
the strength of the Sale Deed executed by defendants 13 and 14. Stating so,
they prayed to dismiss the Original Suit.
CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS 16, 17, 20 AND 21
6. The sixteenth defendant filed a written statement denying
the various allegations contained in the plaint. The said written statement
was adopted by defendants 17, 20 and 21. Sum and substance of their case
is that old Survey No.292B was already orally partitioned and defendants 5
to 8 and 16 to 21 jointly own 76 Cents therein. That's the crux of their case.
Page No.14 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
Though they had filed written statement, they did not contest the case
thereafter.
TRIAL COURT
7. Based on the pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following
issues on July 18, 1989:
"(i) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration
of title in respect of ¼ share in the Suit ‘A’ Schedule
Property?
(ii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to partition of ¼
share in the Suit ‘A’ Schedule Property?
(iii) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to have possession
of ¼ share in the Suit ‘A’ Schedule Property?
(iv) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration
of title in respect of Suit ‘B’ Schedule Property?
(v) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to have possession
of suit ‘B’ Schedule Property?
(vi) Whether the properties described in the plaint are
correct?
(vii) Whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the
Suit?
(viii) To what relief the plaintiffs are entitled to?"
8. The Trial Court framed the following issues as additional issues
on February 23, 1993:
Page No.15 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
"(i) Whether the alleged oral partition is true?
(ii) Whether T.Rangasamy Chettiar has perfected his
title of the suit ‘B’ schedule property by virtue of his
long possession?"
9. At trial, the second plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and one
Ramasamy was examined as P.W.2 and one Muthusamy was examined as
P.W.3 and Ex-A.1 to Ex-A.16 were marked on the side of the plaintiffs.
On the side of the defendants, defendants 14 and 15 namely Sarojini and
Subbanna Udayar were examined as D.W.1 and D.W.2 respectively and
one Murugan was examined as D.W.3 and Ex-B.1 to Ex-B.8 were marked.
10. After full-fledged trial, the Trial Court held that Suit 'A'
schedule property has already been divided and hence, there is no need to
partition the same again. The Trial Court observed that the question that
remained for consideration is with regard to allotment of the Suit 'B'
schedule property during the division of Suit 'A' schedule property i.e.,
whether it was allotted to the plaintiffs or to T.Rangasamy Chettiar. The
Trial Court held that the plaintiffs along with their father had orally gifted
their 57 Cents (¼ share) in Suit 'A' schedule property about forty years
prior to the Suit, which could be inferred from Ex-B.1 - Partition Deed
entered between the plaintiffs. If really the 57 Cents (¼ share) remained
Page No.16 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
with the plaintiffs, then it ought to have found place in Ex-B.1 - Partition
Deed but it did not. Further, the Trial Court observed that the aforesaid oral
gift being less than the value of Rs.100/- is valid. Further, patta stands in
the name of T.Rangasamy Chettiar as it could be seen from Ex-B.3 - Patta
Transfer Order and the plaintiffs failed to prove their possession and
enjoyment of the Suit 'B' schedule property. In these circumstances, the
Trial Court concluded that the Suit 'B' schedule property could have been
allotted only to T.Rangasamy Chettiar. Accordingly, the Suit was dismissed
in entirety.
FIRST APPELLATE COURT
11. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiffs therein preferred an
Appeal before the First Appellate Court in A.S. No.43 of 1996. The First
Appellate Court, after hearing both sides, concurred with the findings of
the Trial Court. In addition, it found that the Suit is barred by limitation as
it has been filed after 12 years from Re-Survey. Accordingly, the First
Appellate Court dismissed the Appeal and thereby, confirmed the
Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court.
SECOND APPEAL
12. Feeling aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by
the First Appellate Court, the appellants / plaintiffs therein have preferred
Page No.17 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
the present Second Appeal under Section 100 of the C.P.C., which was
admitted by this Court on February 24, 1999 on the following Substantial
Questions of Law:
" 1) Whether a Gift between Hindus can be validly created orally?
2) Whether an un-registered unattested gift will operate to convey
title?
3) Whether a plea of adverse possession must not be specifically
raised in the pleadings? "
ARGUMENTS:
13. Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the appellants would submit that ¼ share in Suit 'A' schedule property was
purchased by Rangi Chettiar, along with some more properties under Ex-
A.1 - Sale Deed dated July 24, 1922 and after his lifetime, it fell into the
hands of his son - Kumara Chettiar. In Ex-A.4 – Patta dated December 07,
1923, it could be seen that Kumara Chettiar's name was mutated in the year
1923 in place of his father's name (Rangi Chettiar) in the Joint Patta
No.188 standing in respect of the Suit 'A' schedule property. Kumara
Chettiar executed a Settlement deed in respect of the ¼ share in Suit 'A'
schedule property (Survey Number 292B) same along with some other
properties in favour of his two sons / plaintiffs vide Ex-A.2 - Settlement
Page No.18 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
Deed dated September 22, 1947. Thereafter, an oral division took place
between the co-owners of old Survey No.292B for convenient enjoyment
in which the plaintiffs were allotted the Suit 'B' schedule property and they
have been in possession thereof ever since then. Defendants 16, 17, 20 and
21, who are the co-owners in old Survey No.292B, though did not contest
the case, have filed a written statement supporting the said oral division.
He would further submit that the plaintiffs' possession is evident from the
revenue records in Ex-A.10 to Ex-A.12 (Cultivation Adangal records for
the Fasli year 1377 to 1379) and Ex-A.15. (Kist receipts)
13.1. He would further submit that, while there is no evidence
whatsoever for the alleged oral gift by plaintiffs and their father in respect
of ¼ share in Suit 'A' schedule property in favour of T.Rangasamy Chettiar,
even while assuming it to be true for argument sake, law is clear and well
settled that oral gift is not valid, de hors the value of the property. The Trial
Court as well as the First Appellate Court miserably failed to understand
Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 in the right perspective
and formed an erroneous opinion that oral gift is valid if the property value
does not exceed Rs.100/-. On this ground alone, their Judgments and
Decrees are liable to be set aside. In this regard, he would rely on:
Page No.19 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
(i) Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner
of Income Tax, Jaipur -vs- Sirehmal Nawalakha ,
reported in (2001) 6 SCC 641 ;
(i) Judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Kuverji
Kawasji -vs- The Municipality of Lonawala , reported in
ILR (1920) 45 Bom 164 .
13.2. He would further argue that during Re-Survey, the Suit
'B' schedule property was in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs'
family, was erroneously registered as Re-Survey No.305/6A as if it
belonged to T.Rangasamy Chettiar in old Survey No.292C. In this regard,
he would invite attention to Ex-A.3 - Field Measurement Book [FMB], Ex-
A.8 - Re-settlement Register before Re-Survey and Ex-A.5 - Settlement
Register, to submit that Re-Survey No.305/6A assigned to Suit 'B' schedule
property actually corresponds to old Survey No.292B and not 292C. He
would submit that the same is evident from discrepancies between Ex-A.8
and Ex-A.5 in terms of extent. The Trial Court as well as the First
Appellate Court failed to consider these aspects and evidence in the right
perspective and mechanically went on to the dismiss the Suit in the
absence of any material evidence in support of the contesting defendants'
case viz., defendants 13 to 15. Accordingly, he would pray to allow the
Page No.20 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
Second Appeal and set aside the Judgments and Decrees of Trial Court and
First Appellate Court and decree the Suit as prayed for.
14. Opposing these submissions, Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel, learned
Counsel appearing for the Respondents - 27 to 30 would submit that the
Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court misunderstood the stand of
the contesting defendants viz., defendants 13 to 15. Their stand was that the
plaintiffs and their father - Kumara Chettiar, who were entitled to ¼ share
in the Suit 'A' schedule property, allotted the same in an oral partition in
favour of T.Rangasamy Chettiar, who is not only plaintiffs' cousin but also
their brother-in-law having married their sister - Venkittammal (D.13). The
plaintiffs and their father had no manner of title, right or interest over the
¼ share in the Suit 'A' schedule property after the said oral partition.
14.1. He would further submit that, if really no such oral
partition had taken place and if really the property was not allotted in
favour of T.Rangasamy Chettiar, then the same would have found place in
Ex-B.1 - Partition Deed entered between the plaintiffs. ¼ share in the Suit
'A' schedule property has not been mentioned there, which clearly shows
that it was not available with the plaintiffs and thereby supports the case of
the contesting defendants.
Page No.21 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
14.2. He would further submit that T.Rangasamy Chettiar
owned an extent of 2 Acres 56 Cents in old Survey No.292C. In the oral
partition among co-owners of Survey No.292B, the Suit 'B' schedule
property was allotted to T.Rangasamy Chettiar in lieu of his ¼ share in Suit
'A' schedule property. During his lifetime, T.Rangasamy Chettiar was in
possession and enjoyment of the Suit 'B' schedule property along with the
aforesaid extent of 2 Acres 56 Cents in S.No.292C. It is true that
T.Rangasamy Chettiar was declared insolvent vide Court proceedings and
his property in old Survey No.292C was sold in Court auction sale and
eventually ended in the hands of fifteenth defendant. But, even thereafter,
he continued to be in possession and enjoyment of Suit 'B' schedule
property.
14.3. He would further submit that during Re-Survey in the
year 1969, old Survey No.292C was assigned Re-Survey Nos.305/6A and
305/6B. The Suit 'B' schedule property which was in possession of
T.Rangasamy Chettiar was given Re-Survey No.305/6A and Patta vide Ex-
B.3 - Patta Transfer Order was issued in his favour. Similarly, the extent of
2 Acres 56 Cents in old Survey No.292C was assigned Re-Survey
No.305/6B and patta was issued in favour of the fifteenth defendant. The
plaintiffs have not proved their possession and enjoyment of the Suit 'B'
Page No.22 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
schedule property. The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court,
though misunderstood the case of contesting defendants, rightly considered
the evidence on record and rightly ruled in favour of the contesting
defendants. There is no warrant to interfere with it. There arises no
question of law, much less any substantial question of law in this Second
Appeal. Accordingly, he would pray to dismiss the Second Appeal.
15. In addition to the above contentions, Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel,
learned Counsel for Respondents - 27 to 30 would refer to Paragraph No.8
of the plaint and raise a contention that the plaintiffs filed an earlier Suit in
O.S. No.660 of 1987 seeking declaration of title in respect of ¼ share in
Suit 'A' schedule property herein and permanent injunction restraining the
contesting defendants herein from interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the same, on the file of the Trial Court which
was later transferred to the file of the District Munsif Court,
Gopichettipalayam and renumbered as O.S. No.7 of 1987. The said earlier
Suit was dismissed as withdrawn. Hence, he would contend that the
present Suit is barred under Order (IX) Rule (9) of C.P.C.
16. Further, the learned Counsel would submit that the present
suit is barred by limitation. Elaborating the same, he would submit that
Page No.23 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
Re-Survey was conducted in the year 1969 in the suit Village. If the
plaintiffs feel aggrieved against the determination of any boundary under
Sections 9 and 10 of the TamilNadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923,
they shall institute a suit under Section 14 of the aforesaid Act, within three
years from the date of notification under Section 13 of the TamilNadu
Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923 (Act 8 of 1923) (In short ' 1923 Act').
But, the present suit filed only in 1987. Hence, according to the learned
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.27 to 30, the suit is barred by limitation.
17. Mr.Srinath Sridevan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the appellants would make a rebuttal submission that, the stand taken by
the learned Counsel Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel that ¼ share in the Suit 'A'
schedule property was allotted to T.Rangasamy Chettiar in an oral partition
and not by way of oral gift, is contrary to their own evidence. Even if it is
so, the alleged allotment of ¼ share in Suit 'A' schedule property in favour
of T.Rangasamy Chettiar is invalid, as partition cannot be effected in
favour of a person who had no pre-existing right in the property. Learned
Senior Counsel would emphasize that T.Rangasamy Chettiar would not be
a sharer along with plaintiffs and their father in any manner.
Page No.24 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
18. With regard to Order (IX), Rule (9) of C.P.C. point,
learned Senior Counsel would submit that, pending the earlier Suit, the sale
under Ex-B.2 - Sale Deed was brought about and hence, the plaintiffs
withdrew the earlier Suit with liberty to file fresh Suit. To that extent,
necessary pleadings are contained in Paragraph No.8 of the present plaint
itself.
19. With regard to the limitation point raised by the learned
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.27 to 30, Mr.Srinath Sridevan, would
submit that no notice under Section 9(2) and 10(2) of the 1923 Act was
served to the plaintiffs. Since the plaintiffs was not provided the result of
st
the Re-Survey, 1 plaintiff submitted an application dated November 30,
1978 to the Tahsildar. After receiving application, Tahsildar issued Ex.A6-
notice for enquiry. But, outcome of the said enquiry/decision was not
informed or intimated to plaintiffs. In the meantime, plaintiffs came to
know that Defendants 13 to 15 were trying to obtain patta with a view to
defeat and defraud plaintiffs' right in Survey No.292B. Hence, the
plaintiffs submitted another application dated October 22, 1986 to
jurisdictional Tahsildar. The jurisdictional Tahsildar vide Ex.A.7-Official
Memorandum No.10949/1986, dated October 22, 1986 informed the
plaintiffs that Survey was completed under 1923 Act and notification under
Page No.25 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
Section 13 of the Act was also published in the Gazette. Hence, Tahsildar
informed the plaintiffs to get relief through Court of law. Therefore, the
present suit was filed in 1987, within three years from the date of
knowledge of adverse Survey. Hence, the reliefs sought for in the suit are
not barred by any law, including the law of limitation.
DISCUSSION & DECISION:
20. Heard on either side. Perused the evidence available on
record in light of the above Substantial Questions of Law.
I. ORDER (IX) RULE (9)
21. With regard to the Order (IX) Rule (9) point is concerned,
as neither side filed the plaint or the Decree of the earlier Suit, this Court is
of the view that there is no sufficient material to hold that the present Suit
is barred under Order (IX) Rule (9) of C.P.C. Hence, this Court is not
inclined to accept the Order (IX) Rule (9) point raised by
Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel.
II. LIMITATION
22. Regarding the limitation point is concerned, from Ex.A6,
it is discerned that the plaintiffs got knowledge about the alleged mistake
Page No.26 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
happened in Re-Survey only in 1978. Therefore, the first plaintiff
submitted an application to rectify the mistake. It is further discerned from
Ex-A.6 that, an enquiry was initiated on the application submitted by
Plaintiffs. But, no evidence is available on record about the decision/out
come of aforesaid enquiry. Ex-A.7- Tahsildar's Official Memorandum
dated October 22, 1986 reveals that Re-Survey work was completed before
1986 and the decision under Section 13 of the 1923 Act was also published
before 1986, in the official Gazatte. However, there is no evidence is
available on record to show that the plaintiffs were served notice under
Sections 9(2) and 10(2) of 1923 Act. The authorities constituted under the
1923 Act, ought to have issued notice under Section 9(2) of the Act before
conducting survey and ought to have informed their decision under Section
10(2) of the Act to the registered holders. In this case, there is no evidence
available on record to show that notices under the 1923 Act were given to
the plaintiffs. In the absence of notices under the 1923 Act, the Plaintiffs
can assail the decision passed under the 1923 Act in Civil Court. Hence,
the Civil Court has jurisdiction to go into the correctness of the decision of
the Survey Authorities, while deciding title suit. It is settled law that, in
the absence of notices prescribed under 1923 Act to the registered holder,
any decision / determination about the boundary would not bind the
Page No.27 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
registered holder. Hence, this Court holds that present suit is filed by the
Plaintiffs well within three years from the date of knowledge of the
adverse survey. To be noted, the present suit is not a statutory suit under
1923 Act. The present suit is filed seeking declaration and partition,
alternatively, declaration and delivery of possession of Suit 'B' Schedule
property, based on title. Hence, plaintiffs have 12 years period of limitation
under Article 65 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
III. SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW:
23. There is no serious dispute with the fact that ¼ share in
Suit 'A' schedule property was purchased vide Ex-A.1 - Sale Deed dated
July 24, 1922 by the plaintiffs' grandfather - Rangi Chettiar, and that
thereafter, the plaintiffs' father became entitled to the same. Perusal of Ex-
A.4 - Patta would show that Patta No.188 is a joint patta in respect of the
Suit 'A' schedule property. It would further show that in the year 1923,
Rangi Chettiar's name was mutated with his then minor son - Kumara
Chettiar's name. So the ¼ share in Suit 'A' schedule property fell into the
hands of Kumara Chettiar.
24. According to the plaintiffs, their father - Kumara Chettiar
executed Ex-A.2 - Settlement Deed dated September 22, 1947 in their
favour in respect of the ¼ share in old Survey No.292B whereupon, they
Page No.28 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
became absolutely entitled to the said ¼ share. Thereafter, the co-owners
of old Survey No.292B i.e., Suit 'A' schedule property, orally divided the
same for convenient separate enjoyment and accordingly, the plaintiffs
were allotted the western portion on the southern half of Suit 'A' schedule
property, which has been described as Suit 'B' schedule property. Ever
since, the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the same.
While so, during Re-Survey, the Suit 'B' schedule property was wrongly
registered as if it was owned by T.Rangasamy Chettiar in old Survey
No.292C, and Patta vide Ex-B.3 - Patta Transfer Order dated October 17,
1986 was issued in favour of T.Rangasamy Chettiar. On the strength of the
same, legal heirs of T.Rangasamy Chettiar executed Ex-B.2 - Sale Deed,
dated January 29, 1987 which is invalid and not binding upon the
plaintiffs, in favour of fifteenth defendant who took over possession of the
Suit 'B' schedule property. That is the case of the plaintiffs.
25. The contesting defendants namely defendants 13 to 15
allege that T.Rangasamy Chettiar is not just the plaintiffs' cousin, but he
has also married the plaintiffs' sister. In other words, they allege that
thirteenth defendant, the wife of T.Rangasamy Chettiar is the plaintiffs'
sister. Their case is that the Rights and Title in Suit 'A' schedule property
Page No.29 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
was given up by plaintiffs along with their father - Kumara Chettiar, in
favour of T.Rangasamy Chettiar, being plaintiffs' brother-in-law as well as
cousin. The stand of the contesting defendants qua mode of transfer or the
mode in which the property was given is not clear. The contesting
defendants in their pleadings stated that it was orally given by plaintiffs
and their father in favour of T.Rangasamy Chettiar. During cross-
examination of P.W.1 / second plaintiff, it was suggested by the contesting
defendants that the ¼ share in Suit 'A' schedule property was 'orally gifted'
in favour of T.Rangasamy Chettiar by plaintiffs and their father. Further,
D.W.1 / fourteenth defendant in her evidence has taken a dual stand; first
she has termed it an oral terms and a few lines thereafter, she has termed it
an oral gift. Relevant extract from the evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1 reads
thus:
Cross-examination of P.W.1:
''... v!;/be/292gp rhiyapy ; jdpj;jdpahf ghf!;jh;
mDgtpj;J te;jdh; mjd;go gl;lh MdJ/ fhiy 292gp xl;o
jhd ; 292rp fhiy cs;sJ/ v!;/be/292rp 13k ; gpujpthjpapd;
fzth; u';frhkp brl;oahUf;F ghj;jpak;/ 40 tUlj;jpw;F Kd; g[
v!;/be/292gp kjpg; g[ vd;dbtd;W vdf;FbjhpahJ/ mjd; kjpg; g[
+. 100-?f;F Fiwthf ,Ue;jJ vd;why ; bjhpahJ/
40tUlj;jpw;F gpd;g[jhd; vd; mg;gh 1k; thjp vy;nyhUk; nrh;j;J
Page No.30 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
tha;bkhHpahf 13k ; gpujpthjp fzth ; u';frhkp brl;oahUf;F
v!;/be/292gp jhth g{kp 57 brz;l ; tha;bkhHpahf jhdk;
bfhLj;Jtpl;nlhk; vd;why ; rhpapy;iy/ mJ Kjy ; u';frhkp
brl;oahh ; jhth g{kp jd ; g{kp v!;/be/292rp cld ; nrh;j;J
mDgtpj;J tUfpd;whh; vd;why; rhpapy;iy/ / / ''
Evidence of D.W.1
''... ehd; jhthtpy; 14k; gpujpthjp/ 13k; gpujpthjp vd;
jhahh;/ jhth brhj;J vd ; jhj;jh Fkhu brl;oahUf;F
ghj;jpak;/ Fkhubrl;oahh; vd; mk;khtpw;F mg;gh vd; jhj;jhtpd;
kf;fs; thjpfs;/ mth;fs ; vd; jha; khkd;fs;/ vd; jhj;jh
Fkhubrl;oahh ; vd ; mk;khit gp/brl;oa{y ; vd ; mg;ght[f;F
fl;of;bfhLj;J gp/brl;oa{y ; jhth brhj;Jk ; bfhLj;jhh;/ vd;
mg;ght[f;F 45 tUlj;jpw;F Kd; g[ vd ; jhj;jh bfhLj;jhh;/
thjpfSk ; nrh;j;J jhd ; jhth gp/brl;oa{y ; brhj;J vd;
mg;ght[f;F bfhLj;jdh;/ vd; mg;gh vd; jhj;jht[f;F j';if
kfd; mjdhy ; bgz; bfhLj;J jhth brhj;Jk; bfhLj;jhh;
thjpfSf;F vd; mg;gh mj;ij kfd;///// ''
In cross-examination, she deposed as follows:
''... v!;/be/292-gp vd ; khkd;fSf;F 1-4 g';F
ghj;jpak/ ; kw;w g';fhspfs ; ahh ; vd;W vdf;F bjhpahJ/
vy;nyhUk ; brhe;jkhf rhFgo bra;jdh;/ eh';fSk ; brhe;j
rhFgo bra;njhk;/ v!;/be/292-gp brhj;jpy ; 1-4 g';F
Page No.31 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
v';fSf;F bfhLj;jdh;/ kw;w ghf!;jh;fs ; vg;nghJ ghfk;
bra;jdh; vd;W vdf;FbjhpahJ/ vd; mg;ght[f;F vd; jhj;jh
jhdk; bfhLj;jhh;/ / / ''
'' ///// v!;/be/292-gp bkhj;jk ; 2/28 Vf;fh ; MFk;/
gp/brl;oa{y; brhj;J vd; jhj;jh Fkud; brl;oahUf;F ghj;jpak;/
vd ; jhj;jh vd ; mg;gh u';frhkp brl;oahUf;F
bfhLj;Jtpl;lhh;/ tha;bkhHp fpuakhf bfhLj;Jtpl;lhh;/ mjw;F
gj;jpuk; ,y;iy/ vd; g{kpf;F nrh;e;j khjphp cs;sJ/ mjdhy;
vd; jhj;jh bfhLj;jhh;/ Fkud; brl;oahh;. u';frhkp brl;oahh;.
jpk;kp brl;oahh ; vy;nyhUk ; nrh;e;J bfhLj;Jtpl;ldh;/ 45
tUlj;jpw;F Kd; g[ bfhLj;jdh;/ ve;j tUlk ; jhdk ; vd;
mg;ght[f;F bfhLj;jdh; vd;W bjhpahJ///// ''
'' ///// gp/brl;oa{y ; brhj;J v';fSf;F jhdkhf vd;
khkd;fs ; jhj;jh bfhLj;jjhf TWtJ jtW vd;why;
rhpapy;iy/ brhj;J v';fSf;F ghj;jpak; ,y;yhj fhuzj;jpdhy;
jhd; vd; mg;gh brhj;J Vyk; nghdnghJ ,e;j brhj;J Vyk;
nghftpy;iy vd;why; rhpapy;iy//////// ''
[ Emphasis supplied by this Court ]
25.1. In addition, Mr.Ma.P.Thangavel, learned Counsel
appearing before this Court for the contesting defendants, have in the stage
Page No.32 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
of Second Appeal, sought to clarify that the stand of contesting defendants
is oral partition which was misunderstood by the earlier Courts as oral gift.
26. Starting with the plaintiffs' side contentions, perusal of Ex-
A.2 - Settlement Deed dated September 22, 1947, which is a registered
one, would show that ¼ share in Suit 'A' schedule property and other
properties were settled in favour of the plaintiffs by their father - Kumara
Chettiar.
27. As regard the oral partition between the co-owners of Suit
'A' schedule property, defendants 16, 17, 20 and 21, who are said to be the
co-owners / legal heirs of co-owners of Suit 'A' schedule property, though
did not contest the case, have filed a written statement supporting such an
oral partition for convenient enjoyment. Moreover, there is no serious
dispute with regard to the said oral partition between the plaintiffs and
contesting defendants. What is significant is the allotment thereunder, i.e.,
whether the Suit 'B' schedule property was allotted to the plaintiffs or to
T.Rangasamy Chettiar is the dispute. Ex-A.15 containing kist receipts for
Fasli Years 1363 to 1367 show that the first plaintiff had paid kist in
respect of Ex-A.4 - Patta No.188 which is joint patta in respect of Suit 'A'
schedule property. Further, Ex-A.10 to Ex-A.12 which are cultivation
Page No.33 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
Adangal extracts for the Fasli Years 1377, 1378 and 1379 respectively
stands in the name of first plaintiff. Thus, the revenue records probablizes
the possession of plaintiffs' pursuant to Ex-A.2 - Settlement Deed and the
oral division among co-owners of Survey No.292B, until Ex-B.2 - Sale
Deed, whereupon, on the strength of it, the vendee thereunder namely
fifteenth defendant got into possession of the Suit 'B' schedule property.
Aforesaid documents support the case of the plaintiffs that under the oral
partition among co-owners, the Suit 'B' schedule property was allotted to
them.
28 .As regards the Patta in favour of the T.Rangasamy Chettiar,
the plaintiffs' case is that it was issued erroneously during the Re-Survey. It
is relevant to refer to Ex-A.3, Ex-A.8 and Ex-A.5. When Ex-A.3 - FMB
and Ex-A.8 - Re-settlement Register before Re-Survey, are read together, it
could be seen that old Survey No.292, comprising 6 Acres 33 Cents in
total, was divided into three sub-divisions namely 292A to 292C with
292A measuring 1 Acre 49 Cents, 292B measuring 2 Acres 28 Cents and
292C measuring 2 Acres 56 Cents. As it could be seen from Ex-A.5 - Re-
Survey Settlement Register, the corresponding Re-Survey numbers for old
Survey No.292A is Re-Survey Nos.305/2, that for old Survey No.292B is
Re-Survey No.305/3 to 305/5 and that for old Survey No.292C is
Page No.34 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
Re-Survey Nos.305/6A and 305/6B. There indeed exist some discrepancy
with regard to the extent before and after Re-Survey. While old Survey
No.292A had 1 Acres 49 Cents, its corresponding Re-Survey No.305/2 has
1 Acres 61 Cents [0.65.0 Hectare] i.e., it has about 12 Cents in excess.
Similarly, while old Survey No.292B had 2 Acres 28 Cents, its
corresponding Re-Survey No.305/3 to 305/5 together have 1 Acres 73
Cents only i.e., in short of 55 Cents. Likewise, but more significantly,
while old Survey No.292C had 2 Acres 28 Cents, its corresponding Re-
Survey Nos.305/6A and 305/6B have 36 Cents and 2 Acres 56 Cents
respectively, that is to say, it totally has 36 Cents in excess. This
discrepancy reveals that Ex-A.5 does not reflect correct particulars and the
entries therein are wrong and incorrect; the error is apparent on the face of
record. For ease of appraisal, the above information is tabulated as
hereunder:
Corresponding Re-
Extent as per
Old
Survey No.
Extent as per
Differenc
Re-Survey
Old Survey
e
292A 1 Acre 49 Cents 305/2 1 Acre 61 Cents +12 Cents
Survey No(s).
2 Acres 28
292B
305/3 to 305/5 1 Acre 73 Cents −55 Cents
Cents
305/6A
(Suit 'B' schedule
36 Cents
+36 Cents
2 Acres 56
292C
property)
Cents
305/6B 2 Acres 56 Cents
Page No.35 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
29. It is to be noted that, while there exist an excess of 36
Cents in Re-Survey No.305/6 corresponding to old Survey No.292C, Ex-
B.3 - Patta Transfer Order in favour of T.Rangasamy Chettiar is also in
respect of 36 Cents (in Re-Survey No.305/6A). Be that as it may, it could
be seen that the extent of 2 Acres 56 Cents in Re-Survey No.305/6B is the
extent of 2 Acres 56 Cents in old Survey No.292C which was originally
owned by T.Rangasamy Chettiar and lost in Court auction sale pursuant to
him being declared insolvent. The said extent is currently owned by the
fifteenth defendant and Re-Survey No.305/6B also stands in the name of
fifteenth defendant as it could be seen from Ex-A.9 - Sale Deed dated June
13, 1973 executed by Chinnaiyan in favour of fifteenth defendant. As
stated supra , the plaintiffs' possession of ¼ share in old Survey No.292B
pursuant to Ex-A.2 and oral partition among co-owners is probablized.
While Re-Survey No.305/6 corresponding to old Survey No.292C is in
excess of 36 Cents, the Re-Survey Nos.305/3 to 305/5 which correspond to
old Survey No.292B is less in terms of extent by 55 Cents. When the entire
extent of 2 Acres 56 Cents comprised in old Survey No.292C is already
covered in Re-Survey No.305/6B, there appears to be no basis for
attributing the additional extent of 36 Cents comprised in Re-Survey
No.305/6A either to old Survey No.292C or to T.Rangasamy Chettiar. On
Page No.36 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
the other hand, the Re-Survey Nos.305/3 to 305/5, corresponding to old
Survey No.292B, show a substantial deficit in extent. In these
circumstances, it is apparent from the available records, that the excess 36
Cents in Re-Survey No.305/6A was drawn from the old Survey No.292B
and erroneously accounted as forming part of old Survey No.292C and
consequently as belonging to T.Rangasamy Chettiar. Hence, this Court
prima facie finds the Order to issue patta in favour of T.Rangasamy
Chettiar in respect of Re-Survey Number 305/6A vide Ex-B.3 is invalid
and not binding upon the plaintiffs. It is apposite to mention that there is no
evidence available on record to show that notice was issued to plaintiff
while passing Ex.B3-Order. Therefore, Ex.B.3-Order would not bind the
plaintiffs. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the plaintiffs' have
prima facie proved their case.
30. It is to be noted that 36 Cents would not exactly be ¼
share in the Suit 'A' schedule property whose total extent is 2 Acres 28
Cents. ¼ share thereof would come to 57 Cents. But the plaintiffs
themselves have stated that the Suit 'A' schedule property was orally
partitioned. They have further sought declaration either in respect of ¼
share in Suit 'A' schedule property or in respect of the 36 Cents in Re-
Survey No.305/6A which is the Suit 'B' schedule property, which shows
Page No.37 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
that the plaintiffs have consented to restrict their share. As held above, they
were in possession and enjoyment of the Suit 'B' schedule property which
measures 36 Cents. In these circumstances, the extent of 36 Cents not
matching the plaintiffs' share in Suit 'A' schedule property would not harm
their case in any manner.
31. Now that the plaintiffs' have prima facie established their
case, this Court shall examine the contesting defendants' case to see if they
have preponderance of probabilities in their favour. While there is no
whisper from the plaintiffs on defendants 13 to 15's contention that
T.Rangasamy Chettiar is their brother-in-law, plaintiffs have admitted that
T.Rangasamy Chettiar is their cousin. As stated supra , the contesting
defendants claim that ¼ share was given up to T.Rangasamy Chettiar by
plaintiffs and their father but the mode is not clear. If their stand is oral
sale, it is settled law that, as per Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act,
1882, no oral sale is valid until and unless the value of the property is less
than Rs.100/- and possession is handed over. There has to be foundational
pleadings to prove oral sale. There has to be pleadings as to the value of
the property and as to the delivery of possession. Such pleadings must also
be accompanied and supported by evidence. In the case on hand, there are
no such foundational pleadings and no evidence showing that the
Page No.38 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
property's value was below Rs.100/- and that possession was handed over
pursuant to oral sale. In the absence of evidence, it is also less probable
that ¼ share in an extent of 2 Acres 28 Cents was sold orally for less than
Rs.100/-. As stated above, the plaintiffs on the strength of Ex-A.10 to Ex-
A.12 and Ex-A.15 have established that the Suit 'B' schedule property was
allotted to them in the oral partition among co-owners of Suit 'A' schedule
property and that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same
ever since until Ex-B.2 - Sale Deed. Hence, it cannot be said that
T.Rangasamy Chettiar was put in possession and enjoyment of the ¼ share
in Suit 'A' schedule property nor that he was allotted the Suit 'B' schedule
property in the oral partition among co-owners. In these circumstances, if
the defendants' stand is oral sale, it would not hold up as valid when
scrutinised.
32. Admittedly, plaintiffs father T.Rangasamy Chettiar, and
Defendant Nos.13 to 15 all belong to Hindu Religion. Hence Section 123
of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 shall be applicable to the parties. If the
contesting defendants' stand is oral gift, then reference must be made to
Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, which reads as
hereunder:
Page No.39 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
"123. Transfer how effected.- For the purpose of
making a gift of immoveable property, the transfer must
be effected by a registered instrument signed by or on
behalf of the donor, and attested by at least two
witnesses. For the purpose of making a gift of moveable
property, the transfer may be effected either by a
registered instrument signed as aforesaid or by delivery.
Such delivery may be made in the same way as goods
sold may be delivered. "
33. Bare reading of the above provision makes it clear that gift
of an immovable property can be made only through a registered
instrument attested by at least two witnesses. The only exception provided
thereto is under Section 129 thereof which inter-alia exempts gifts covered
under Mohameddan law from mandatory registration. As far as Hindus are
concerned, Section 123 is squarely applicable and any gift made must be
through a duly registered and attested instrument.
34. Reference shall also be made to Section 17 of the
Registration Act, 1908 which reads thus:
"17. Documents of which registration is compulsory-
(1) The following documents shall be
registered, if the property to which they relate is
Page No.40 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
situate in a district in which, and if they have been
executed on or after the date on which, Act No. XVI of
1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the
Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian
Registration Act, 1877 or this Act came or comes into
force, namely:-
(a) instruments of gift of immovable
property;
(b) other non-testamentary instruments
which purport or operate to create, declare, assign,
limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any
right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of
the value of one hundred rupees, and upwards, to or in
immovable property;
(c) non-testamentary instruments which
acknowledge the receipt or payment of any
consideration on account of the creation, declaration,
assignment, limitation or extinction of any such right,
title or interest; and
(d) leases of immovable property from
year to year, or for any term exceeding one year, or
reserving a yearly rent;
(e) non-testamentary instruments
transferring or assigning any decree or order of a
court or any award when such decree or order or
award purports or operates to create, declare, assign,
limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any
Page No.41 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of
the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in
immovable property:
PROVIDED that the State Government may, by order
published in the Official Gazette, exempt from the
operation of this sub-section any leases executed in
any district, or part of a district, the terms granted by
which do not exceed five years and the annual rent
reserved by which do not exceed fifty rupees.
(2) Nothing in clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section
(1) applies to-
XXX XXX XXX
(3) Authorities to adopt a son, executed after the
1st day of January, 1872, and not conferred by a will,
shall also be registered. "
35. As it could be seen from the above, the Registration Act,
1908 also mandates registration of gift of immovable property and the
distinction of property being more than or equal to hundred rupees does
not apply to a gift in respect of immovable property. In Hari Pada
Mukherjee -vs- Elokeshi Devi , reported in AIR 1940 Cal 254 , a learned
Single Judge of Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta observed as hereunder:
Page No.42 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
" … Assuming that Nimai had made a gift of all his
secular properties and his shebaiti right absolutely in favour of
Abhoya before he died and assuming also that the gift was
accepted by and on behalf of the daughter, I fail to see how
without any registered document a gift of immovable properties
could be valid at all after the passing of the Transfer of
Property Act of 1882.
Sec. 123 of the Transfer of Property Act is applicable to
the Hindus and it applied to the Hindus even before the
Amending Act XX of 1929 was passed. The old sec. 129 left
untouched all the other provisions of Hindu Law relating to gift
except matters which came under the purview of sec. 123 of the
Transfer of Property Act. Therefore the rule of Hindu law
relating to the formalities of a valid gift must be deemed to be
abrogated by sec. 123 of the Transfer of Property Act and no
gift inter vivos of an immovable property could be validly made
after the passing of the Act except by a registered document as
contemplated by sec. 123 [vide Lallu Singh v. Gur Narain,
[I.L.R. 45 All. 115 (F.B.) (1922).] and Dharmodas
Das v. Nistarini Dasi [I.L.R. 14 Cal. 416 (1887).] ]. "
36 . The same principle is reiterated in the cases relied on by
the learned Counsel as well. Admittedly, the parties herein are Hindus.
Hence, both the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court
misconceived the provisions of law relating to gift in respect of immovable
property and committed a grave error in holding that gift in respect of
immovable property under the value of Rs.100/- need not be registered.
Page No.43 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
Substantial Question of Law Nos.(1) and (2) is answered accordingly in
favour of plaintiffs and against the contesting defendants.
37. If the contesting defendants' stand is oral partition, it is
settled law that partition can be effected only among persons with pre-
existing rights. There is nothing available on record to show that
T.Rangasamy Chettiar had any pre-existing interest or right over the ¼
share in Suit 'A' schedule property in any manner. Nor is there any
pleadings to that effect. Hence, this Court is of the view that, if the
contesting defendants' stand is oral partition, it must also fail.
38. Neither of the modes in which ¼ share in Suit 'A' schedule
property is said to have been given up by plaintiffs and their father in
favour of T.Rangasamy Chettiar could pass the test of validity. That apart,
merely because patta was erroneously issued in favour of T.Rangasamy
Chettiar in respect of the Suit 'B' schedule property while conducting Re-
Survey, it will not confer any rights. It is invalid and not binding upon the
plaintiffs. Further, the mere fact that the ¼ share in the Suit 'A' schedule
property did not find place in the Partition Deed entered between plaintiffs,
it cannot be said that the same does not belong to the plaintiffs or that it
belonged to T.Rangasamy Chettiar. As stated supra , the plaintiffs' have
Page No.44 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
established their case by way of Preponderance of Probability. On the other
hand, the contesting defendants have failed to establish their case. There is
no evidence available on record to show that T.Rangasamy Chettiar or the
contesting defendants were in possession and enjoyment of the Suit 'B'
schedule property prior to the Re-Survey. Hence, this Court is of the view
that the plaintiffs have successfully established their case. Therefore, the
Patta issued in favour of T.Rangasamy Chettiar under Re-Survey is invalid
and not binding upon the plaintiffs. Consequently, Ex-B.2 - Sale Deed
dated January 29, 1987 executed by the legal heirs of T.Rangasamy
Chettiar namely defendants 13 and 14, in favour of fifteenth defendant is
also invalid and not binding upon the plaintiffs.
39. As regards the Substantial Question of Law No.(3), in
order to claim title by adverse possession, there must be foundational
pleadings to show continuous, exclusive and open possession for more
than the statutory period with necessary animus against the original owner.
In this case, there are no such pleadings. This is a well settled legal
position. Yet, in this regard, this Court is inclined to refer to the recent
Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kishundeo Rout -vs- Govind Rao ,
reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1665 , wherein it was held as follows:
Page No.45 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
"30. The above discussion leads us to the only
conclusion, and that is, that, unless the plea of adverse
possession has. been specifically raised in the
pleadings, put in issue, and then cogent and
convincing evidence led on a multitude of points, and
an opportunity to refute the case made out by the
plaintiff, availed of by the defendant, the plea of
adverse possession cannot be allowed to be flung as a
surprise, on an unsuspecting defendant, for the first
time in appeal."
Substantial Question of Law No.(3) is answered accordingly
in terms of the law laid down by the afore-cited Judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
40. As held above, the plaintiffs have proved their case by way
of preponderance of probabilities. The Trial Court as well as the First
Appellate Court did not consider the evidence, especially did not consider
Ex.A.3, Ex.A4, Ex.A5 to Ex.A8, Ex.A.10 to Ex.A12, and Ex.A.15. Hence,
the findings of the Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court are
wrong in non-suiting the plaintiffs. Consequently, this Court is inclined to
allow the Second Appeal. As both the Trial Court and the First Appellate
Page No.46 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
Court arrived at a finding that Suit 'A' schedule property has already been
partitioned and the same cannot be partitioned again, this Court is inclined
to grant the plaintiffs the alternate relief of declaration of title and recovery
of possession in respect of Suit 'B' schedule property.
CONCLUSION
41. In the result, the Second Appeal is allowed. The
Judgments and Decrees of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are
set aside. The plaintiffs are entitled to the alternate relief of declaration of
title and recovery of possession in respect of Suit 'B' schedule property.
Legal heirs / legal representatives of late fifteenth defendant (Respondents
27 to 30 in the Second Appeal) shall deliver vacant possession of the Suit
'B' schedule property to the Plaintiffs within two months from the date of
this Judgment. The Original Suit is decreed qua the alternate relief
accordingly. Considering the facts and circumstances of the Case, there
shall be no order as to costs throughout. Consequently, connected civil
miscellaneous petition(s) if any shall stand closed.
02 / 09 / 2026
Index : Yes
Speaking Order : Yes
Neutral Citation : Yes
JRS/TK/GVN
Page No.47 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )
2026:MHC:3624
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
R. SAKTHIVEL, J.
JRS/TK/GVN
To
1.The Subordinate Court
Gobichettipalayam.
2.The District Munsif
Sathyamangalam.
PRE-DELIVERY JUDGMENT MADE IN
S.A. NO.204 OF 1999
02 / 09 / 2026
Page No.48 of 48
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 03/09/2026 07:04:15 pm )