ABDUL RAHMAN SAIT, vs KALI @ KALIAPPAN,
- Court
- Madras High Court
2026:MHC:4448
SA(MD) No. 455 of 2014
0BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
RESERVED ON : 13-10-2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 03-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE THIRUMAGAL
CHANDRASEKAR
SA(MD) No. 455 of 2014
CNR:{HCMD010844502014}
and MP(MD).No.1 of 2014
1. Abdul Rahman Sait(died)
S/o.Late.Peersahul Hameed, D.No.42-c, New
Street, Athirampattinam, Pattukottai Taluk,
Thanjavur District.
2. Pasariya,
W/o.Rahamathullah, D/o.Late.Peersahul Hameed,
D.No.42-c, New Street, Athirampattinam,
Pattukottai Taluk, Thanjavur District.
3. Roja Ammal,
W/o.Abbas, D/o.Late.Peersahul Hameed,
D.No.187, New Street, Thirampattinam,
Pattukottai Taluk, Thanjavur District.
4. Jamila Begam
W/o.Late.Abdul Rahman Sait, D.No.42-c, New
Street, Athirampattinam, Pattukottai Taluk,
Thanjavur District.
5. Peer Masthan Gani
S/o.Late.Abdul Rahman Sait,d.No.42-c, New
Street, Athirampattinam, Pattukottai Taluk,
Thanjavur District.
6. Sulaihal Parvin
D/o.Late.Abdul Rahman Sait, D.No.42-c, New
Street, Athirampattinam, Pattukottai Taluk,
Thanjavur District.
__________
Page 1 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:32:39 pm )
2026:MHC:4448
SA(MD) No. 455 of 2014
7. Fathima Gani
D/o.Late.Abdul Rahman Sait,d.No.42-c, New
Street, Athirampattinam, Pattukottai Taluk,
Thanjavur District.
8. Wahitha Rahuman
(APPELLANTS R4 TO 8 ARE BROUGHT ON
RECORD AS LRS OF THE DECEASED 1st
appellant VIDE COURT ORDER DATED
19.07.2023 MADE IN CMP(MD)NOS. 418,419
AND 421 OF 2023 IN SA(MD)NO. 455 OF 2014
BY KRJ.)
..Appellant(s) /
Plaintiffs
Vs
1. Kali @ Kaliappan,
S/o.Karuppiah, North Street, Uthamapalayam
Town & Taluk, Theni District.
2. Usha,
W/o.Raju, D.No.143-a, Ward No.4, Anna Nagar
Extension, Electricity Board Colony,
Uthamapalayam Town & Taluk, Theni District.
3. Tahsildar (revenue)
Taluk Office, Uthampalayam Town,
Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District.
4. Chellammal,
W/o.Sarbudeen, D/o.Late.Peer Sahulhameed,
Near Pallivasala, P.T.R.Colony, Uthampalayam
Town, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District.
.. Respondents / Defendant(s)
For Appellants: Mr.V. George Raja
For M/s. Ajamal Associates
rd
For 3 respondent: Mr.P. Sathish Kumar
__________
Page 2 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:32:39 pm )
2026:MHC:4448
SA(MD) No. 455 of 2014
Government Advocate
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC to set aside the
decree and Judgment dated 27.06.2011 passed in A.S.No.26 of 2010 on
the file of the Subordinate Judge, Uthamapalayam confirming the decree
and Judgment dted 18.02.2010 passed in O.S.No.156 of 2008 on the file
of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthamaplayam.
JUDGMENT
This Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 CPC to set
aside the Decree and Judgment dated 27.06.2011 passed in A.S.No.26 of
2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Uthamapalayam confirming
the
Decree and Judgment dated 18.02.2010 passed in O.S.No.156 of 2008 on
the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthamaplayam.
2. The Brief Facts of the Case are as follows:
(i) The suit was instituted by the plaintiffs seeking a declaration of
their title to the suit property and a consequential relief of permanent
injunction. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property originally
belonged to the Government of Tamil Nadu. Their mother, Ponnuthayee,
__________
Page 3 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:32:39 pm )
2026:MHC:4448
SA(MD) No. 455 of 2014
daughter of Kaliba, applied to the Government for assignment of a house
site patta. Upon consideration of her application, the Special Tahsildar,
Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, Uthamapalayam, issued a house-site
patta dated 04.05.1983 in her favour and handed over possession of the
property to her. Subsequently, the said Ponnuthayee died on 17.11.2007.
The plaintiffs further stated that their father, Peer Sahul Hameed, had
predeceased their mother in the year 1957. As the plaintiffs were residing
elsewhere, the fourth defendant was maintaining the suit property.
(ii) It was the further case of the plaintiffs that the first defendant,
by creating a fraudulent patta, purported to convey the suit property to
one Murugesan, son of Rasu, under a nominal sale deed dated
09.10.2000, registered as Document No.1622 of 2000 in the office of the
Sub-Registrar, Uthamapalayam. According to the plaintiffs, Murugesan
was never put in possession of the suit property. Thereafter, the first
defendant allegedly repurchased the property from Murugesan under a
sale deed dated 10.10.2003 and subsequently conveyed the same to the
second defendant under a sale deed dated 28.12.2007. The plaintiffs
contended that the said three sale deeds would not bind their lawful rights
over the suit property and that the defendants 1 and 2 were interfering
with their rights, thereby necessitating the institution of the suit for the
__________
Page 4 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:32:39 pm )
2026:MHC:4448
SA(MD) No. 455 of 2014
aforesaid reliefs.
(iii) The defendants contested the suit by contending that the suit
property was originally Government poramboke land under the
supervision and maintenance of the Tahsildar's Office, Uthamapalayam.
They denied knowledge of the plaintiffs' claim that Ponnuthayee,
daughter of Kaliba, was the mother of the plaintiffs and the fourth
defendant. According to the defendants, the first defendant had been
allotted a house site in the year 1983 under a Government scheme
intended for washermen and persons belonging to the barber community,
during the tenure of the then Chief Minister, M.G. Ramachandran, and
had been in possession and enjoyment of the property pursuant to such
allotment.
(iv) The defendants further contended that the first defendant had
sold the suit property to Murugesan, son of Rasu, and subsequently
repurchased it from him before conveying the same to the second
defendant, to whom possession was also delivered. It was stated that
when the second defendant attempted to construct a compound wall
around the suit property, the plaintiffs obstructed the work, pursuant to
which the second defendant's husband lodged a complaint on 29.04.2008.
__________
Page 5 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:32:39 pm )
2026:MHC:4448
SA(MD) No. 455 of 2014
The Uthamapalayam Police allegedly advised the parties to seek
appropriate relief before the competent Court. Denying the other
allegations in the plaint, the defendants contended that the plaintiffs were
not entitled to the reliefs sought for and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
(v) Before the Trial Court, on behalf of the plaintiffs one witness
was examined as PW.1 and ten documents were marked as Exs.A1 to
A10. On behalf of the defendants, five witnesses were examined as DW.1
to DW.5 and three documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B3.
(vi) Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the
Trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiffs
preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court, which also
dismissed the appeal, thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the
Trial Court.
3. Challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the
appellants / plaintiffs have preferred the present Second Appeal.
4. Heard Mr.V. George Raja for M/s. Ajamal Associates, learned
counsel appearing for the Appellants and Mr.P. Sathish Kumar,
__________
Page 6 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:32:39 pm )
2026:MHC:4448
SA(MD) No. 455 of 2014
rd
Government Advocate, learned counsel appearing for the 3 respondent
and perused the materials available on record.
5. The Second Appeal was admitted on the following substantial
questions of law:
"1. Whether the first Appellate Court and the trial Courts are
right in relying Ex.B2 which is inadmissible under Section 65
of the Evidence Act?
2. Whether the Lower Courts judgment are vitiated under law
as the findings are based against pleadings and admission of
DW1 and DW4?
3. Whether the Courts below ought to have applied the legal
principle "Possession follows" title in the case, especially
when there is no plea of adverse possession by respondents.?
6. The appellants / plaintiffs 1 to 3 and the fourth respondent/fourth
defendant are the sons and daughter of one Ponnuthayee. According to
the appellants / plaintiffs, Ponnuthayee was granted a house-site patta by
the Special Tahsildar, Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, on 04.05.1983,
which was marked as Ex.A2. The said Ponnuthayee died on 17.11.2007.
The appellants / plaintiffs were residing in foreign countries, and the
fourth respondent/fourth defendant was looking after the suit property.
__________
Page 7 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:32:39 pm )
2026:MHC:4448
SA(MD) No. 455 of 2014
Alleging interference with their rights by the respondents / defendants in
the year 2008, the appellants / plaintiffs instituted the suit seeking a
declaration of title to the suit property and a consequential relief of
permanent injunction.
7. The case of the respondents/defendants is that the suit property
was allotted to the first respondent/first defendant under a Government
scheme implemented in the year 1983 for the benefit of members of the
Salavai Thozhilalargal Sangam (Washermen's Association), under which
house sites were allotted to 120 persons. The patta issued in favour of the
first respondent/first defendant was marked as Ex.B1.
8. It is the further case of the respondents/defendants that the first
respondent/first defendant sold the suit property to one Murugesan in the
year 2000 and subsequently repurchased the same from him in the year
2003. Thereafter, the property was conveyed to the second
respondent/second defendant under a sale deed executed in the year 2007,
and possession was stated to have been delivered to the purchaser
symbolically. Neither the appellants / plaintiffs nor the respondents /
defendants were in actual physical possession of the vacant suit site.
__________
Page 8 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:32:39 pm )
2026:MHC:4448
SA(MD) No. 455 of 2014
9. Both the Courts below, upon appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence, concurrently held that Ex.A1, the patta relied
upon by the appellants/plaintiffs, contained material alterations. The
name of Kali, son of Karuppaiah, the first respondent/first defendant, was
found in the said document, but his name had been struck off and the
name of Ponnuthayee had been inserted in its place. The
appellants/plaintiffs failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for the
said material alteration. In the absence of a proper explanation regarding
the genuineness of Ex.A1, both the Courts below declined to accept the
appellants' claim of title and dismissed the suit.
10. Per contra, the respondents/defendants relied upon Ex.B2, the
patta issued in their favour, which was corroborated by Ex.B3, which
reads as follows:
“ தே னி மாவட்டம் , உத்தமபாளை யம்
வட்டம் , உத்தமபாளை யம் கிராமம் , புல எண்
1937/1, 2, 3 ஆகிய புலங்களில் பிற்பட்ட
வகுப்பினரான வண்ணார் , நாவிதர்களுக்கு
இவ்வலுவலக ந . க . எண் 3246/82, நாள் 4.5.83
மூலம் நிலம் ஆர்ஜிதம் செய்யப்பட்டு , மே ற்படி
புலங்களில் புல எண் 2019, 2020
ஆகியவை களுக்கு மே ற்கிலும் , புல எண் 110-
, ,
ன் கிழக்கிலும் பாதை க்குத் தெ ற்கிலும் புல
1951-
எண் க்கு வடக்கிலும் உள்ள நான்கு
புலங்களின் மை யத்திற்குட்பட்டுள்ள பிளாட்
எண் 111- ல் 00.03 சென்ட் நிலம் , மே ற்படி
__________
Page 9 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:32:39 pm )
2026:MHC:4448
SA(MD) No. 455 of 2014
,
உத்தமபாளை யம் வட்டம் உத்தமபாளை யம்
.
கிராமத்தில் வசித்து வரும் திரு கப்பையா
மகன் காளி என்ற காளியப்பன் என்பவருக்கு
,
இலவச வீட்டுமனை ப் பட்டா வழங்கப்பட்டு
அவரது சொ ந்த அனுபவத்தில் உள்ளது எனச்
சான்று வழங்கப்பட்டுள்ளது .
The evidence of DW1 and DW4 also lent support to the case of the
respondents/defendants. Upon an overall appreciation of the evidence on
record, the Courts below accepted the documentary evidence relied upon
by the respondents/defendants and held that their claim was better
substantiated by the available records.
11. The question of adverse possession does not arise for
consideration in the present case, as neither party has established actual
physical possession of the vacant suit property. The appellants/plaintiffs
instituted the suit seeking a declaration of title and, therefore, the burden
rests upon them to establish their title on the strength of their own case
and evidence, rather than on the weakness of the defence. In respect of a
vacant site, the principle that possession follows title may be relevant;
however, the appellants / plaintiffs must first establish their title to the
suit property by acceptable evidence. In Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi
Reddy (Dead) by LRs., reported in (2008) 4 SCC 594 , the Hon’ble
__________
Page 10 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:32:39 pm )
2026:MHC:4448
SA(MD) No. 455 of 2014
Supreme Court held in paragraph 14 as follows:
“14. But what if the property is a vacant site, which is
not physically possessed, used or enjoyed? In such cases the
principle is that possession follows title. If two persons claim
to be in possession of a vacant site, one who is able to
establish title thereto will be considered to be in possession,
as against the person who is not able to establish title. This
means that even though a suit relating to a vacant site is for
a mere injunction and the issue is one of possession, it will be
necessary to examine and determine the title as a prelude for
deciding the de jure possession.”
12. In the present case, the appellants/plaintiffs have failed to
establish the genuineness of Ex.A1, particularly in view of the
unexplained material alterations noticed therein. On the other hand, the
respondents/defendants relied upon Ex.B2 and Ex.B3 in support of their
claim. The transactions relating to the suit property, commencing with the
sale in the year 2000, followed by the repurchase in the year 2003 and the
subsequent conveyance in the year 2007, were also relied upon by the
respondents/defendants in support of their claim of right over the
property. These circumstances, considered along with the oral evidence
of DW1 and DW4, lend support to the findings recorded by the Courts
below.
__________
Page 11 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:32:39 pm )
2026:MHC:4448
SA(MD) No. 455 of 2014
13. The learned counsel for the appellants / plaintiffs has not
demonstrated any perversity in the appreciation of evidence by the Courts
below or any error of law warranting interference in this Second Appeal.
The contention that the fourth respondent/fourth defendant, having
previously worked in the Adi Dravidar Welfare Department, might have
influenced the issuance of the patta in favour of Ponnuthayee remains an
inference unsupported by sufficient material on record. Nevertheless, the
appellants / plaintiffs' failure to explain the material alterations in Ex.A1,
coupled with the documentary evidence relied upon by the
respondents/defendants, constitutes a sufficient basis for sustaining the
concurrent findings of the Courts below.
14. The allotment of the suit site to the first respondent/first
defendant under the scheme for members of the Salavai Thozhilalargal
Sangam ( ryitj; njhopyhsh;fs; rq;fk;) , including the allotment of
Site No.111 measuring 0.3 cents, as reflected in the documentary
evidence relied upon by the respondents/defendants, lends support to
their case. The substantial question of law answered against the
appellants / plaintiffs and does not warrant interference under Section 100
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Thus, this Court finds no valid
__________
Page 12 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:32:39 pm )
2026:MHC:4448
SA(MD) No. 455 of 2014
ground to alter the concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the
Courts below.
15. In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no
order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
03-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
T. RAJAPRABA
__________
Page 13 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:32:39 pm )
2026:MHC:4448
SA(MD) No. 455 of 2014
To
1. The Subordinate Judge, Uthamapalayam.
2. The District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Uthamaplayam.
3. The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High
Court, Madurai.
__________
Page 14 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:32:39 pm )
2026:MHC:4448
SA(MD) No. 455 of 2014
THIRUMAGAL CHANDRASEKAR, J.
T.RAJAPRABA
SA(MD) No. 455 of 2014
and MP(MD).No.1 of 2014
03-11-2026
__________
Page 15 of 15
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 04/11/2026 05:32:39 pm )