Madras High Court, S.A.No.544 of 2000 (with connected CMP.No.4682 of 2000), G.K. Ilanthiraiyan J., verdict dated 02.06.2020. Second appeal under Section 100 CPC by the defendants (six appellants, Lakshmi Ammal and others) against the judgment and decree dated 14.10.1999 of the Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu in A.S.No.47 of 1999, whereby the first appellate Court reversed the dismissal by the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu (O.S.No.126 of 1985, decree dated 30.03.1999) of the plaintiff S.Bakthavatsalu Naidu's suit for declaration and injunction over the 'A' and 'B' schedule properties. Substantial questions of law framed at admission concerned the sustainability of the appellate Court's adverse-possession-related point, its alleged omission of material documents considered by the trial court, alleged wrong appreciation of evidence, and computation of limitation from 1965 onwards (the date of purchase by the plaintiff's vendor). Held: per Ex.B.1 and the registered partition deed Ex.A.2, Manicka Mudaliar's three sons (Venkatathri, Narayanasamy and the second defendant) took equal shares, each 81 feet east-west x 145 feet north-south; the plaintiff purchased 'A' schedule property from Venkatathri; the Ex.B.2 boundary showing Savithri's property (who bought Venkatathri's share under Ex.A.3) on the west, and the conveyances Ex.A.4 and Ex.A.5 by Narayanasamy Mudaliar, corroborate the measurements; the Advocate Commissioner's report and plan (Ex.C.1, Ex.C.2) were considered. The plaintiff's title stood proved; the first appellate Court rightly reversed the trial Court's findings and decreed the suit. No substantial questions of law were held to be involved; all the formulated questions were answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. Second Appeal dismissed; connected miscellaneous petition closed; no order as to costs.
