CRP(MD)/2470/2026 of Krishnammal (Died), 1. P. Je Vs R.K. Hari Anandan on 9 September 2026

ORDER

This petition has been filed to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 23.07.2026 made in I.A.No.8 of 2026 in A.S.No.49 of 2021 on the file of the Court of the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai, and allow the Civil Revision Petition.

2. The respondents/plaintiffs filed a suit in O.S.No.59 of 2016 before the I Additional Sub Judge, Madurai, for declaration, recovery of possession, mandatory injunction and ownership against the petitioners/defendants herein. The petitioners/defendants contested the suit on the ground that they are in long-standing adverse possession and claimed ownership by way of adverse possession. The trial Court held that the petitioners/defendants had not produced any document to

( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 03:33:18 pm )

CRP(MD). No.2470 of 2026 support their contention and the suit was decreed in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs on 26.11.2020. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners/defendants filed an appeal in A.S.No.49 of 2021 before the learned Principal District Judge, Madurai, and the same is pending. Pending the appeal, the petitioners/defendants filed a petition in I.A.No.8 of 2026 seeking to call for the land tax register relating to the property in Re.Survey No.440/1 in Madakkulam Village from the Thirupparankundram Tahsildar Office, Madurai District, and the same was dismissed on 23.07.2026 on the ground that the documents sought by the petitioners/defendants are not at all relevant to decide the appeal. Challenging the same, this petition has been filed.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in respect of the suit schedule property, patta was issued in the name of the petitioners/defendants' mother, namely, Krishnamal. She has paid the land tax from the year 1990. All the original tax receipts were handed over to the previous advocate and, unfortunately, he lost the receipts without marking the same before the Court as exhibits. He also died during the pendency of the appeal. Therefore, they are not in a position to

( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 03:33:18 pm )

CRP(MD). No.2470 of 2026 file any documents before the Trial Court. Hence, they issued a letter to the Tahsildar, Thirupparankundram, Madurai District, on 16.03.2026, with a request to issue the above documents under the Right to Information Act. Since there was an election, the Tahsildar, Thirupparankundram, Madurai District, sent a reply to them on 26.05.2026 and asked for some more time. However, in the meantime, when the appeal was posted for arguments, due to pressure, they filed a petition in I.A.No.8 of 2026 before the Appellate Court to summon the Tahsildar, Thirupparankundram, Madurai District, which was dismissed by the learned Appellate Judge on 23.07.2026. Hence, he prayed to allow this petition by setting aside the order passed by the learned Appellate Judge.

4. Heard the learned cousnel for the petitioners and also perused the material available on records.

5. In this case, the respondents herein filed caveat petitions and Mr.K.Sudalaiyandi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in Caveat No.1970 of 2026.

( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 03:33:18 pm )

CRP(MD). No.2470 of 2026

6. On perusal of the records, it is seen that though the petitioners/defendants alleged that they are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property, to substantiate the same, no document was produced before the trial Court. They have not taken any steps during the trial to mark those documents and simply blamed their counsel by stating that he had not marked those documents. They did not even notice the same when they were examined and cross-examined by the other side. The suit was dismissed as early as in the year 2020, and the appeal was filed in the year 2021. Now, the appeal has been posted for argument. However, the petitioners/defendants state that they want to summon the Tahsildar, Thirupparankundram, Madurai District, to produce the documents.

7. This Court is of the opinion that the petitioners/defendants have not taken any steps to prove their possession and enjoyment of the property. After the appeal was posted for argument, in order to drag on the proceedings, they filed a petition before the Appellate Court. After considering the entire records, the learned Appellate Judge dismissed the said petition. Hence, this Court finds no merit in this petition, and there is no need to interfere with the order passed by the learned Appellate Judge.

( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 03:33:18 pm )

CRP(MD). No.2470 of 2026

8. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

09.09.2026 DSS To

1. The Principal District Judge, Madurai.

2. The Section Officer, Vernacular Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court.

( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 03:33:18 pm )

CRP(MD). No.2470 of 2026 R. POORNIMA,J DSS

ORDER

IN CRP(MD). No.2470 of 2026 and CMP(MD)No.12261 of 2026 Date : 09/09/2026

( Uploaded on: 01/10/2026 03:33:18 pm )