Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Alexander Vs a. Mariaselvam — Specific Performance | Madras HC (2024)

Home
Madras HC
2024
Alexander Vs a. MariaselvamAlexander v. a. Mariaselvam

Dismissed

Alexander v. a. Mariaselvam

Madras HC14 Oct 2024SA/706/2024

Case brief

from the order text

What is this about?

of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT…

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

A

S.A. No.706 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED :14.10.2024

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI

S.A.No.706 of 2024

Alexander

... Appellant

Vs

A.Mariaselvam ... Respondent

PRAYER : Second Appeal filed Under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and decree dated 30.06.2022 passed in A.S.No.63 of 2017 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Palacode reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 26.07.2017 in O.S.No.78 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsiff Court, Palacode.

The appellant has filed the Second Appeal against the Judgment and

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether documents executed by the defendant's family after the 1957 sale conveyed any right over the suit properties.

Statutes considered

1 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Civil Procedure Code100

Parties & counsel

AI extract

appellant
Alexander
respondent
A.Mariaselvam

Coram

AI extract

T.V. Thamilselvi

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Madras HC
Decided on: 14 Oct 2024 · October
Registered: 9 Oct 2024
Case no.: SA/706/2024

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from T.v.thamilselvi

Ramesh Vs M.S.Manickavelu
4 Oct 2024
S.L.Srinivasan Vs M.Vijay Kumar
4 Oct 2024
Paramanandham Vs Murugan
4 Oct 2024
R.Kalaivani Vs Savithiriyamma
14 Oct 2024
Arumuga Pillai Vs Ponnuswamy

Cite this judgement

Alexander v. a. Mariaselvam, SA/706/2024 (MAD), decided on 14 October 2024.

The Madras High Court publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes1

Civil Procedure Code100

View all statutes

Bench / Coram

T.V. Thamilselvi

Parties & counsel

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether documents executed by the defendant's family after the 1957 sale conveyed any right over the suit properties.

A compact analysis

This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.

decree dated 30.06.2022 passed in A.S.No.63 of 2017 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Palacode, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated

1\8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A. No.706 of 2024

26.07.2017 in O.S.No.78 of 2011 on the file of the District Munsiff Court, Palacode.

For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as they were ranked in the suit.

The appellant herein is the defendant in O.S.No.78 of 2011, filed before the learned District Munsiff, Palacode, by the respondent/plaintiff. The suit was filed for the relief of a declaration to declare the plaintiff as the absolute owner of the A-Schedule property, for delivery of possession, and for the removal of encroachment made on the B-Schedule property.

The plaintiff contends that the suit properties were purchased by his father, Arokiyam, through a sale deed dated 05.08.1957. Subsequently, a partition took place among the family members, through which the plaintiff became the owner of the property. The defendant/appellant, who is a third party, attempted to interfere with the suit property, leading to the filing of the suit. The defendant denied the plaintiff's claim and did not accept the purchase made by the plaintiff's father in 1957. According to the defendant, a family partition took place between his grandfather, Arokiyasamy, and his

2\8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A. No.706 of 2024

grandmother, Madhalammal, through a partition deed dated 06.10.1983, by which the suit property was allotted. After his grandfather’s death in 1999, the defendant's father, Madhalaimuthu, executed a sale deed in his favour on 03.03.2004. Since then, the defendant has claimed absolute ownership of the properties

Before the trial Court, both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence, and issues were framed. After considering all the evidence, the learned trial judge dismissed the suit, noting that S.No.11 had already been subdivided but was not properly explained by the plaintiff. The plaintiff also failed to produce evidence of the alleged partition between his father and his father’s brother in 1974. The learned trial judge relied on the partition deed within the defendant's family, as well as the settlement deed in the defendant’s name, to conclude that the property was in the defendant’s possession. Furthermore, the construction on the B-Schedule property was not sufficiently described. Therefore, the suit was dismissed.

Challenging this decision, the plaintiff filed an appeal in A.S.No.63 of 2017. The First Appellate Judge independently analyzed the evidence,

3\8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A. No.706 of 2024

framed issues, and found that during cross-examination, DW1 (the defendant) admitted that there was a sale deed dated 05.08.1957 in the name of the plaintiff’s father and his father’s brother. The property originally belonged to DW1’s grandfather, Arokiyasamy.

Considering the evidence from DW1, the First Appellate Judge concluded that the defendant was aware of the sale made by his grandfather, Arokiyasamy. Therefore, after 1957, the defendant’s grandfather had no right to the suit property. The partition deed of 1983 (Ex.B3) and the sale deed of 2004 (Ex.B4) did not confer any right to the defendant in respect of the suit properties, as it had already been sold to the plaintiff’s family. Moreover, the earlier suit in O.S.No.27 of 2011, filed by the defendant, did not mention the extent of the house property, which weakened the defendant's objections regarding the boundaries of the properties.

The First Appellate Judge further observed that, according to Ex.P2 (the Encumbrance Certificate from 01.01.1987 to 31.12.1986), the suit properties were in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff’s family. A

4\8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A. No.706 of 2024

family partition in 1973 had also been recorded, affirming the plaintiff’s absolute ownership of the properties. The trial Court’s failure to properly appreciate these facts led to its incorrect dismissal of the suit.

Thus, the findings of the trial court were set aside, and the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant then filed the present second Appeal challenging the reversal of the trial Court's judgement.

The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the First Appellate Judge failed to recognize any substantial questions of law and had erroneously appreciated the evidence in favour of the plaintiff, neglecting the partition deed in the defendant's family. The counsel therefore prayed for the appeal to be admitted.

However, after reviewing the findings of Courts below, it is evident that during cross-examination, DW1 admitted that the plaintiff’s father and his father’s brother, Selvanathan, had purchased the property from the defendant’s grandfather, Arokiyasamy, in 1957. The plaintiff had

5\8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A. No.706 of 2024

been enjoying the property since the 1973 family partition. The defendant’s claim of ownership based on the partition deed dated 06.10.1983 (Ex.P3) is

invalid because, by that time, the suit properties no longer belonged to the defendant’s family, having already been sold to the plaintiff’s father on 05.08.1957. Consequently, the documents executed after 1957 did not confer any right to the defendant over the suit properties, as rightly observed by the First Appellate Judge, despite the trial court’s failure to appreciate this fact.

Furthermore, the Encumbrance certificate relied upon by the plaintiff, marked as Ex.P5, clearly shows that from the date of purchase in 1957 until 1986, the properties were enjoyed by them as absolute owners. During all these years, the defendant did not challenge the sale deed standing in the plaintiffs name. Notably, the suit was filed by the respondent / plaintiff in 2011, as the defendant caused interference. Till date, the sale deed dated 05.08.1957, in the name of the plaintiff's father, remains in force, and no substantial question of law is involved.

Thus, the findings of the First Appellate Court are confirmed, and

6\8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A. No.706 of 2024

there is no need for interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

14.10.2024

Index : Yes/No Neutral Citation : Yes/No Speaking/Non Speaking order rri To 1.The Subordinate Court, Palacode. 2.The District Munsiff Court, Palacode. 3.The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Madras.

T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.

rri

7\8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A. No.706 of 2024

S.A.No.706 of 2024

14.10.2024

8\8

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CNR

HCMA010541192024

Topic

Specific Performance

Bench

T.v.thamilselvi

Disposal

DISMISSED

14 Oct 2024

Sekar Vs 1.JOthy deceased

14 Oct 2024