V.Gajendran vs PALANI AMBALAM (DIED), P.Murugaeswari

Court
Madras High Court

SA(MD) No. 738 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 28-10-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY
SA(MD) No. 738 of 2022
and CMP(MD).No.11058 of 2022
and CMP(MD).Nos.11164 & 11165 of 2026
CNR:{HCMD011111882022}
1. V.Gajendran
S/o.Vilianathevar,
No.12, Nadar South Street,
Avaniyapuram, Madurai-625 012.
2. R.Muthunagammal
W/o.G.Rathinam,
No.28B, Maninagaram Street,
Avaniyapuram, Madurai-625 012.
..Appellant(s)
Vs
Palani Ambalam (Died)
1. P.Murugaeswari
D/o.Late.Palani Ambalam,
No. 16/1,1st Ward,
Paanaikudi Village,Acchampatti Post,
Alanganallur, Vaadipatti Taluk,
Madurai District.
2. P.Kannan
S/o.Late.Palani Ambalam,
No. 16/1,1st Ward,
Paanaikudi Village,Acchampatti Post,
Alanganallur, Vaadipatti Taluk,
Madurai District.
3. P.Jayalakshmi
D/o.Late.Palani Ambalam,
No. 16/1,1st Ward,
Paanaikudi Village,
__________
Page  1  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 11:51:14 am )

SA(MD) No. 738 of 2022
Acchampatti Post,
Alanganallur, Vaadipatti Taluk,
Madurai District.
..Defendant(s)
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure
Code, to prefer this Memorandum of grounds of Second Appeal against
the judgment and decree dated 17-06-2022 made in A.S.No. 85 of 2015
on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madura confirming the
judgment and decree dated 29-07-2015 made in O.S.No. 360 of 2007 on
the file of the District Munsif, Madurai Taluk.
PRAYER in CMP(MD).No.11164 of 2026 : This petition has been filed
to receive the sale deed dated 02.03.1990 executed by Plaintiff’s mother
nd
Meenakshi Ammal in favour of 2 appellant as additional evidence in the
above SA(MD).No.738 of 2022.
PRAYER in CMP(MD).No.11165 of 2026 : This petition has been filed
to send the documents to Forensic Department for comparing the
disputed thumb impression of respondents/plaintiffs mother
Meenakshiammal and signature of the attestors found in the sale receipt
(Ex.B2) with the admitted thumb impression of respondents/plaintiffs
mother Meenakshiammal and signature of the attestors found in the sale
deed dated 02.03.1990, the document which has been filed as additional
evidence in the above second appeal.
For Appellant(s) :M/s J.Lakshmiprasanna
For Defendant(s) : Mr.R.Nandakumar
__________
Page  2  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 11:51:14 am )

SA(MD) No. 738 of 2022
JUDGMENT
This second appeal has been filed to set aside the judgment and
decree dated 17-06-2022 made in A.S.No. 85 of 2015 on the file of the
Principal Subordinate Judge, Madura confirming the judgment and decree
dated 29-07-2015 made in O.S.No. 360 of 2007 on the file of the District
Munsif, Madurai Taluk.
2. The present Second Appeal is preferred by the defendants in the
suit, who are the appellants herein. The respondents herein are the
plaintiffs.
3. The brief facts of the case is that One Angammal was the
original owner of the suit property. She sold an extent of 60 cents to one
Meenakshiammal. Subsequently, Meenakshiammal purchased the
adjacent land, measuring 61 cents, from one Rajammal. Thus,
Meenakshiammal acquired and held the properties measuring an extent of
1 acre and 21 cents. During her lifetime, Meenakshiammal executed a
Power of Attorney dated 14.12.1992 in favour of the first defendant,
namely, Gajendran, the first appellant herein. Prior thereto, she had also
executed a sale receipt, which was marked as Ex.B2. Subsequently,
Meenakshiammal died on 11.12.1994. Consequently, the plaintiffs
__________
Page  3  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 11:51:14 am )

SA(MD) No. 738 of 2022
contended that the Power of Attorney executed in favour of the first
defendant ceased to be operative upon her death and that the first
defendant had no authority to deal with or alienate the suit property
thereafter. The second defendant, being the owner of the adjacent
property, allegedly intended to acquire the suit property belonging to the
plaintiffs. Taking advantage of the Power of Attorney, the first defendant
executed a sale deed in favour of the second defendant. Thereafter, the
second defendant allegedly trespassed into the suit property and took
possession of the same.
4. The contention of the defendants/appellants is that the plaintiffs'
mother, Meenakshiammal, had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of
the first defendant and had also executed a sale receipt in his favour. On
the strength of the said documents, the first defendant executed a sale
deed in favour of the second defendant. However, the plaintiffs disputed
the genuineness and validity of the sale receipt as well as the authority
conferred under the Power of Attorney and contended that the Power of
Attorney ceased to operate upon the death of Meenakshiammal. The
further contention of the defendants/appellants is that, in order to
establish and compare the signatures of Meenakshiammal found in
Exs.B2 and B5, they had filed I.A.No.523 of 2017 in O.S.No.85 of 2015.
__________
Page  4  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 11:51:14 am )

SA(MD) No. 738 of 2022
However, the said application was dismissed on the ground that no thumb
impression of Meenakshiammal was available in Ex.A4.
5. On perusal of the documents, it is seen that the trial Court had
recorded a finding that the thumb impression of Meenakshiammal was
available in Ex.A4. Therefore, the order passed by the first appellate
Court dated 10.07.2018 requires reconsideration.
6. It is further pertinent to note that, in the judgment under
challenge, the first appellate Court has observed that the defendants had
not taken any steps to establish the genuineness of the signature of
Meenakshiammal. However, the records would reveal that the defendants
had made an earnest attempt to establish the same by filing I.A.No.523 of
2017. Therefore, the observation of the first appellate Court that the
defendants had not taken any steps in this regard is contrary to the
records. The appellants had also filed C.R.P.No.1883 of 2019, which was
closed on 14.11.2022, observing that the first appeal had already been
disposed of. In such circumstances, the appellants were left without any
effective opportunity to establish the genuineness of the disputed
signatures. Hence, this Court is of the view that an opportunity should be
afforded to the appellants to establish the same.
__________
Page  5  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 11:51:14 am )

SA(MD) No. 738 of 2022
7. In view of the foregoing reasons, the Second Appeal is allowed
and the matter is remitted to the first appellate Court for fresh
consideration.
8. The first appellate Court is directed to entertain the application
filed by the appellants for comparison of the signatures of
Meenakshiammal found in Exs.B2 and B5, after affording an opportunity
to the legal heirs of the deceased Meenakshiammal to participate in the
proceedings. Thereafter, the first appellate Court shall consider the
genuineness of the disputed signatures and, based on the outcome of such
comparison and the other relevant materials available on record, decide
the issues relating to the Power of Attorney and the other documents in
accordance with law.
9. It is made clear that the scope of consideration by the first
appellate Court shall be confined to the issue of comparison of the
disputed signatures and the consequential submissions arising therefrom.
Both parties are at liberty to advance their respective arguments on the
said issue.
__________
Page  6  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 11:51:14 am )

SA(MD) No. 738 of 2022
10. It is further clarified that the plea of res judicata shall not, by
itself, operate as a bar to consideration of the present application,
particularly when the original of Ex.B5 is now available in the document
bundle. Though Ex.B5 has already been marked in the proceedings as a
certified copy, the original document is stated to be available with the
defendants. Therefore, the first appellate Court shall consider the original
of Ex.B5, along with Ex.B2, for the purpose of comparison of the
disputed signatures, subject to the applicable rules of evidence and
procedure.
11. All the documents filed along with the CMP shall also be
transmitted to the first appellate Court for the purpose of carrying out the
above exercise.
12. The first appellate Court is directed to complete the above
exercise within a period of five months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
13. It is further noted that the original documents were filed before
this Court along with C.M.P.(MD) Nos.11164 and 11165 of 2026. Since
__________
Page  7  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 11:51:14 am )

SA(MD) No. 738 of 2022
the said petitions have been allowed, the Registry is directed to return the
original documents to the appellants, in accordance with the orders
passed therein. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is
closed.
28-10-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
msrm
To
1. The Section Officer
VR Section
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Madurai
2. The Principal Sub Court, Madurai.
3. The District Munsif Court, Madurai.
__________
Page  8  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 11:51:14 am )

SA(MD) No. 738 of 2022
S.SRIMATHY, J.
MSRM
SA(MD) No. 738 of 2022
28-10-2026
__________
Page  9  of  9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
( Uploaded on: 05/11/2026 11:51:14 am )