Dismissed¶53

N.Mayavan v. P.Elavazhagan

Madras HC25 Mar 2026SA/96/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Madras High Court; SA No. 96 of 2020; S. Sounthar J.; decided 25-03-2026; second appeal under Section 100 CPC dismissed; permanent injunction; oral exchange plea unproved; partition deed Ex.A1 dated 04.02.1960; Gurusamy/Narayanasamy/Pattusamy; cloud over title; maintainability of bare injunction suit without declaration; revenue records post-dating suit unreliable; Ex.A6 silent on exchange; reliance on decree in O.S.No.37 of 2012; concurrent findings of Additional District Munsif Chidambaram (OS.No.142/2011, 31.08.2016) and II Additional District Judge Chidambaram (A.S.No.38 of 2019, 25.07.2019) confirmed; no costs; Cuddalore/Bhuvanagiri/Manjakollai.

What did the court decide?

None to the appellant; the second appeal is dismissed, confirming the findings (judgments and decrees) of the courts below, with no order as to costs. ¶53

N.Mayavan Vs P.Elavazhagan — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant; the second appeal is dismissed, confirming the findings (judgments and decrees) of the courts below, with no order as to costs.

¶53

Issue for consideration

Whether the defendant proved his plea of oral exchange (between Pattusamy, the plaintiff's father, and Narayanasamy, the defendant's father) so as to establish right over the suit properties allotted to the plaintiff's grandfather Gurusamy under Ex.A1, or whether the concurrent findings of the courts below decreeing permanent injunction to the plaintiff stand. +1 more

¶39

Court's answer

The defendant failed to prove the plea of oral exchange: the written statement pleaded no specific date for the exchange or handover of the suit properties, no independent witness was examined, and the interested testimony of the defendant alone (DW1) is insufficient to prove it.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

The plaintiff proved his right and possession over the suit properties through Ex.A1 (registered partition deed admitted by the defendant), patta/agangal extract/patta passbook in grandfather Gurusamy's name, and the decree in O.S.No.37 of 2012 negativing a like oral-exchange plea by the defendant's brother; the defendant's revenue records post-date the suit and cannot be safely relied on, and Ex.B1 refers to an oral partition but not to the pleaded oral exchange.

¶45

Key takeaways

As the defendant claims right over the suit properties solely under the alleged oral exchange, its omission from the defendant's own family partition deed (Ex.A6), coupled with the failure to lead any evidence in proof, renders the plea highly doubtful; a mere plea will not create any cloud over the title of the plaintiff, so the bare suit for injunction is sustainable.ratio¶50
The appellant's submissions are not acceptable; no illegality or perversity is found in the findings reached by the courts below based on their appreciation of oral and documentary evidence.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Second Appeal (Section 100 CPC) by the unsuccessful defendant dismissed, confirming the concurrent findings of the courts below. The plaintiff traced the suit properties to a registered partition deed Ex.A1 dated 04.02.1960, under which they fell to the share of his grandfather Gurusamy, and proved possession via patta, agangal extract and patta passbook in Gurusamy's name and a prior decree in O.S.No.37 of 2012 negativing a similar oral-exchange plea by the defendant's brother. The defendant claimed under an alleged oral exchange between Pattusamy (plaintiff's father) and Narayanasamy (defendant's father), but pleaded no date for it, examined no independent witness, produced only revenue records post-dating the suit, and his own family partition deed Ex.A6 made no reference to the exchange; his interested testimony as DW1 was held insufficient. The court held that the unproved plea creates no cloud over the plaintiff's title, sustaining the bare suit for permanent injunction (decreed in OS.No.142/2011 on 31.08.2016 and upheld in A.S.No.38 of 2019 on 25.07.2019). No order as to costs.

¶1

SA No. 96 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 25-03-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. SOUNTHAR

¶6

SA No. 96 of 2020

¶7

N.Mayavan, S/o. Narayanasamy, Vandayankuppam Village, Manjakollai And Post, Bhuvanagiri Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶8

..Appellant(s)

¶9

¶10

P.Elavazhagan, S/o. Pattusamy, Vandayankuppam Village, Manjakollai And Post, Bhuvanagiri Taluk, Cuddalore District.

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 25.07.2019 passed in A.S.No.38 of 2019 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Chidambaram, Confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 31.08.2016 passed in OS.No.142/2011 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Chidambaram.

¶13

For Appellant(s): Ms.V.Sivani for Mr. K.V.Babu For Respondent(s): M/s.A.Muthukumar

¶14

__________ Page1 of 9

¶15

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

¶16

SA No. 96 of 2020

¶17

JUDGMENT

¶18

The unsuccessful defendant is the appellant herein. The respondent herein/plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction and it was decreed by the Trial Court. The findings of the Trial Court was affirmed by the first appellate court. Challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below, the defendant has come before this court.

¶19

According to the respondent/plaintiff, there was a partition in the family of the plaintiff and the defendant on 04.02.1960 under Ex.A1. In the said family partition, A schedule property was allotted to the plaintiff’s grand father Gurusamy and the B schedule property was allotted to the defendant’s father Narayanasamy. The suit properties are part of A schedule property allotted to the said Gurusamy. It is the case of the plaintiff that after partition, Gurusamy and Narayanasamy enjoyed their respective properties allotted to them. After the death of Gurusamy, his sole heir, Pattu samy enjoyed the suit property along with other properties. After the demise of Pattusamy, the properties devolved on the heirs of Pattusamy, including the plaintiff and the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The defendant, who has no right over the suit properties attempted to interfere with the possession of the plaintiff over the suit properties during agriculture operation. Hence, the present suit was laid seeking permanent injunction.

¶20

__________ Page2 of 9

¶21

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

¶22

SA No. 96 of 2020

¶23

The appellant/defendant filed a written statement, admitting the partition deed dated 04.02.1960 and allotment of the properties to Gurusamy and Narayanasamy. However, it was the specific case of the defendant that there was a oral exchange between the father of the plaintiff, namely Pattusamy and father of the defendant, namely Narayanasamy and as per the oral exchange, the properties allotted to the share of Pattusamy were given to the defendant’s father Narayanasamy and the properties allotted to the share of Narayanasamy were given to plaintiff’s father Pattusamy. Further it was stated by the defendant that from the date of oral exchange, the suit properties had been in possession of Narayanasamy and after his death, the defendant has been in possession of the same. It is also contended by the defendant that in the year 2010, there was a partition in the family of the defendant, wherein, the suit properties were allotted to the share of the defendant and subsequently, the defendant mutated the revenue records in his name. Hence, the defendant sought for dismissal of the suit.

¶24

Before the trial court, on the side of the plaintiff, he examined himself as PW1 and 11 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to Ex.A11. On the side of the defendant, he himself examined as DW1 and 14 documents were marked as Ex.B1 to Ex.B14. One court witness was examined as CW1 and through him one document was marked as Ex.C1.

¶25

__________ Page3 of 9

¶26

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

¶27

SA No. 96 of 2020

¶28

The Trial Court, on appreciation of evidence available on record, came

¶29

to the conclusion that the defendant failed to prove his plea of oral exchange and hence, decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.38 of 2019 on the file of II Additional District Court, Chidambaram and the first appellate court confirmed the findings of the trial court. Challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below, the defendant has filed the present second appeal.

¶30

The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would submit that in the sale deed executed by the plaintiff under Ex.B1, the plaintiff referred about the oral partition. Therefore, there is serious cloud over the title of the plaintiff and hence, a simple suit for bare injunction, without prayer for declaration of title is not maintainable. The learned counsel further submits that the defendant produced revenue documents in respect of certain items of the suit properties and the courts below failed to take into consideration the said vital evidence.

¶31

A perusal of the pleadings of the parties would indicate that there is no dispute with regard to the partition in the families of the parties on 04.02.1960 under Ex.A1. Under the said partition deed, the suit properties were allotted to the share of plaintiff’s grand father Gurusamy and some other properties were allotted to the defendant’s father Narayanasamy. With regard to the said partition, there is no dispute between the parties.

¶32

Page4 of 9

¶33

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

¶34

SA No. 96 of 2020

¶35

It is the case of the plaintiff that after the death of Gurusamy in the year

¶36

1974, his only son Pattusamy succeeded to the suit properties and enjoyed the same. After the death of Pattusamy in the year 2005, the plaintiff and other

¶37

heirs of Pattusamy succeeded to the suit properties and hence, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. On the other hand, it is the

¶38

specific case of the defendant that even though the suit properties were allotted to the share of plaintiff’s grand father Gurusamy under a registered partition deed, thereafter, there was a oral exchange between the plaintiff’s father Pattusamy and defendant’s father Narayanasamy and under the said oral exchange, the suit properties were given to the defendant’s father Narayanasamy and as such, the defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the same.

¶39

The defendant, though in the written statement raised the plea of oral exchange, there is no specific plea on which date the oral exchange had taken place and on which date the suit properties were handed over to the defendant’s father Narayanasamy. In order to establish the plea of oral exchange, the defendant has not examined any independent witness. The only evidence available on record is the interested testimony of defendant as DW1 and the same is not sufficient to prove the oral exchange pleaded by the defendant.

¶40

__________ Page5 of 9

¶41

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

¶42

SA No. 96 of 2020

¶43

The plaintiff has proved his right over the suit property by producing

¶44

Ex.A1- registered partition deed, which was also admitted by the defendant. The plaintiff also produced patta - Ex.A4, Agangal extract- Ex.A5 and patta

¶45

passbook - Ex.A7 in the name of his grand father Gurusamy. etc. to prove his physical possession over the suit properties. More over, the plaintiff also filed Ex.A10 and Ex.A11, the judgment and decree passed in a suit in O.S.No.37 of 2012 filed by him against the brother of the present defendant. In the above said suit, the court below, negatived the plea of oral exchange raised by the defendant thereon, who is none other than the brother of the defendant in the present suit. The courts below, taking into consideration all these documents, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff proved the allotment of suit properties to his grand father Gurusamy and also his possession over the suit properties. On the other hand, the defendant, who raised the plea of oral exchange and allotment of suit properties to his father Narayanasamy under oral exchange, failed to prove the same by examining any independent witness. The revenue records produced by the defendant are subsequent to the filing of suit. Therefore, the same cannot be safely relied on. In Ex.B1 - sale deed executed by the plaintiff, there is a reference about the oral partition, however, there is no reference about the oral exchange pleaded by the defendant. Further, in Ex.A6 - partition deed entered into among the defendant and his family members, there was no reference about the oral exchange pleaded by the defendant.

¶46

__________ Page6 of 9

¶47

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

¶48

SA No. 96 of 2020

¶49

It is the specific case of the defendant that the suit properties, which

¶50

were allotted to the share of plaintiff’s grandfather Gurusamy were given to the defendant’s father Narayanasamy by oral exchange involving the plaintiff’s father Pattusamy and defendant’s father Narayanasamy. Therefore, the defendant is claiming right over the suit properties only under the oral exchange. Had it been true, in the partition deed entered among the family members of the defendant, there should be a reference about the oral exchange. In the absence of any reference in the partition deed with regard to the oral exchange, the said plea raised by the defendant is highly doubtful, since the defendant failed to lead any evidence to prove the said oral exchange and hence, a mere plea per se will not create any cloud over the title of the plaintiff.

¶51

In view of the above discussion, the submissions made by the appellant is not acceptable to this court and I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings reached by the courts below based on the appreciation of oral and documentary evidence.

¶52