SA(MD)/255/2014 of S.KRISHNAN(DIED) Vs RAKKAMMAL(DIED) on 5 November 2026

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal has been filed against the Judgment and

Decree dated 26.09.2013 made in A.S.No. 66 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Sivagangai reversing the Judgment and decree dated 18.02.2011 made in O. S. No.119 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Manamadurai.

2. The Brief Facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The case of the plaintiff is that the suit properties, consisting of one punjai item and four nanjai items, originally belonged to his grandfather, Late Sandhanam Servai, and thereafter devolved upon his father, Late Sangili Servai, and subsequently upon the plaintiff by succession. The plaintiff claimed that he had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties along with his predecessors-in-title and relied upon the patta standing in his name to establish his title and possession. He further claimed to have perfected his title by long and continuous possession. Alleging that the defendants had been attempting to interfere with his possession and encroach upon the suit properties from 20.08.2008, the plaintiff instituted the suit seeking the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction.

(ii) The defendants contested the suit, denying the plaintiff's title and possession. According to them, the suit properties originally belonged to one Sangili Servai, son of Sandhanam Servai, and were acquired by him partly through purchase under sale deeds dated 18.08.1949 and 21.08.1951, while certain other properties were his ancestral properties. They contended that, following the deaths of Sangili Servai and his brother Pitchai without heirs, the properties devolved upon their relatives and successors and ultimately came into the possession and enjoyment of the defendants under a family arrangement. They further claimed that patta had been issued in their names under Patta No.1005 and denied that the plaintiff had any right, title or possession over the suit properties. They also raised objections regarding the maintainability of the suit and non-joinder of necessary parties and sought dismissal of the suit with costs.

(iii) . Before the Trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A5. On the side of the defendants, D.W.1 to D.W.3 were examined and Ex.B1 to Ex.B27 were marked.

(iv) . Upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Court decreed the suit, declaring that the suit properties belonged to the plaintiff and granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the defendants preferred an appeal and the same was allowed setting aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court.

3. Challenging the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court, the appellant / plaintiff has preferred the present Second Appeal.

4. The present second appeal is admitted on the following substantial questions of law:-

a) Has not the lower Appellate Court committed error in law in holding that plaintiff is not the son of late Sangil1 Servai when no issue was framed by the trial Court?

b) Is not the Judgment of the lower Appellate Court vitiated for not taking note of the materials on record to sustain the plea of the plaintiff?

c) Is the lower Appellate Court justified in law in holding that the plaintiff is not the son of late Sangili Servai based on the postal acknowledgement cards and enquiry notices when the revenue records and other documents established that the plaintiff is the son of late Sangili Servai?"

5. Heard Mr. A. Sivaji, learned counsel appearing for the appellants / plaintiffs and Mr. K. T. Arivukumar , learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 9 / defendants and perused the materials available on record.

6. The appellant / plaintiff instituted the suit seeking the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of five items of properties. The case of the appellant / plaintiff is that the suit properties originally belonged to his grandfather, namely, Sandhanam Servai, and thereafter devolved upon his father, Sangili Servai, and subsequently upon him by succession. According to the appellant / plaintiff, the suit properties are ancestral properties, and he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same along with his predecessors-in-title. He relied upon the revenue records, particularly Patta No.195, standing in his name, to substantiate his claim of title and possession. He further contended that the respondents / defendants attempted to interfere with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and, therefore, filed the suit for the aforesaid reliefs.

7. The respondents / defendants resisted the suit by contending that the suit properties originally belonged to Sangili Servai, son of Sandhanam Servai, who had acquired certain items through registered sale deeds dated 18.08.1949 and 21.08.1951, while the remaining properties were his ancestral properties. According to them, Sangili Servai and his brother Pitchai Servai died issueless, and the properties ultimately devolved upon their paternal uncle, Adhimoolam @ Periyampillai, and thereafter upon his legal heirs. The respondents / defendants claimed that they had acquired rights over the suit properties through succession and family arrangement and were in possession and enjoyment of the same. They further contended that Patta No.195 had been wrongly issued in the name of the appellant / plaintiff and, upon their representation to the revenue authorities, the same was cancelled and Patta No.1005 was issued in their favour.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / plaintiff submitted that the suit properties originally belonged to the plaintiff's grandfather viz., Sandhanam Servai, and thereafter devolved upon his father, Sangili Servai. The plaintiff, being the legal heir of Sangili Servai, succeeded to the properties and was in possession and enjoyment of the same. Exs.A1 and A2, namely, the revenue records and patta particulars, would establish the appellant / plaintiff's claim. He further contended that the respondents / defendants had failed to establish their alleged relationship with Sangili Servai and that the revenue authorities had cancelled the appellant / plaintiff's patta and granted Patta No.1005 in favour of the respondents / defendants without conducting a proper enquiry. In support of his contention he relied upon the following judgments:

(i) The Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2004 (3) CTC 682 in the case of Jayaramdas and Sons v. Mirza Rafatullah Baig and Others,

(ii) The Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 268 in the case of Sanjay Kumar Singh v. The State of Jharkhand, and

(iii) The Judgment of this Court reported in 2026 (5) CTC 257 in the case of D.M. Maheswaran v. M. Parameswaran D. Mayandi (Died) and Others.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents / defendants submitted that the appellant / plaintiff had failed to establish the foundational fact that he was the son of Sangili Servai. According to the respondents / defendants, the suit properties belonged to their predecessor, Sangili Servai, and the same devolved upon them through the family lineage of Adhimoolam @ Periyampillai. He further contended that the appellant / plaintiff had not produced any acceptable documentary evidence to establish his alleged relationship with Sangili Servai and that the First Appellate Court had rightly appreciated the evidence and reversed the judgment of the Trial Court.

10. It is not in dispute that the suit properties originally stood in the name of Sangili Servai under Patta No.195. The first item of the suit property was purchased by Sangili Servai under a sale deed dated 18.09.1949 from Muthu Irulappan. The second item is claimed to be his ancestral property. The third item was purchased under a sale deed dated 31.08.1951. The fourth and fifth items are stated to have been purchased from Karuppayee Ammal, a member of the family. Thus, the principal controversy between the parties is not merely with regard to the original ownership of the properties, but with regard to the identity and relationship of the appellant / plaintiff with the said Sangili Servai and the consequent devolution of the suit properties.

11. The respondents / defendants claimed that Sangili Servai and his brother Pitchai Servai died issueless. Thereafter, the properties

devolved upon their paternal uncle, Adhimoolam @ Periyampillai. The said Adhimoolam had two sons, namely, Veeru Servai and Krishnan. The first defendant is the daughter of Veeru Servai, the second and third defendants are her sons, and the fourth defendant is the grandson of Krishnan. On the basis of the said relationship, the respondents / defendants claimed title to the suit properties.

12. The appellant / plaintiff, on the other hand, specifically asserted that his father was Sangili Servai and that his grandfather was Sandhanam Servai. However, the appellant / plaintiff did not produce any independent documentary evidence, such as a birth certificate, school record, legal heirship document or any other acceptable record, to establish that he was the son of the particular Sangili Servai who owned the suit properties.

13. In this regard, the contents of the appellant / plaintiff's proof affidavit assume significance. In the affidavit, the plaintiff stated: "எனது தகப்பனார் பெயர் சங்கிலி சேர்வை ஆகும். எனது தகப்பனார் சங்கிலி சேர்வை யை பெற்ற தாத்தாவின் பெயர் சந்தனம் சேர்வை ஆகும்."

The plaintiff further claimed that the suit properties originally belonged to his grandfather and thereafter devolved upon his father and subsequently upon him by succession. However, the appellant / plaintiff's claim regarding the identity of his father was specifically disputed by the respondents / defendants. They relied upon Exs.B1 to B3, Ex.B7 and Ex.B16 to establish that the appellant / plaintiff was not the son of the Sangili Servai who owned the suit properties.

14. Exs.B1 and B2 are postal acknowledgment cards addressed to "கல்லுவீட்டு கிருஷ்ணன் த/பெ செல்லம்". Ex.B16 is another postal acknowledgment card bearing the same description. Ex.B3 is the certified copy of the plaint in O.S.No.121 of 2008, instituted by Ramachandran against Rakkammal and others. These documents were relied upon by the respondents / defendants to establish that the appellant / plaintiff was described in certain proceedings and correspondence as Krishnan, son of Chellam, and not as the son of Sangili Servai.

15. As per Ex.B7 the revenue authorities considered the earlier revenue records and found that the relevant properties had originally stood in the name of Sangili Servai under Patta No.195. The proceeding also granted patta in favour of the respondents / defendants in respect of the properties claimed by them. The First Appellate Court considered the said proceedings along with the other documentary evidence, including the revenue records and the materials relating to the defendants' possession and enjoyment.

16. It is true that Exs.A1 and A2 reflect the revenue entries in the name of Sangili Servai and subsequently in the name of the appellant / plaintiff. However, the mere transfer of patta in the name of the appellant / plaintiff would not, by itself, establish his relationship with the original pattadharar or confer title upon him. The appellant / plaintiff was required to establish the preliminary fact that he was the son and legal heir of Sangili Servai who owned the suit properties. The revenue records, though relevant for the purpose of possession and revenue administration, cannot independently establish the disputed relationship or confer title.

17. Though Exs.A1 and A2 disclose that the revenue records and patta stood in the name of Sangili Servai and were subsequently transferred in the name of the appellant / plaintiff, such entries by themselves do not establish the appellant's filial relationship with Sangili Servai. Revenue records are maintained primarily for fiscal and administrative purposes and may constitute evidence of possession, but they are not documents of title nor do they furnish proof of lineage or succession. In the present case, when the very relationship between the appellant / plaintiff and Sangili Servai was specifically disputed by the respondents / defendants, it was incumbent upon the appellant / plaintiff to produce independent and acceptable evidence establishing such relationship. In the absence of any birth record, school record, legal heirship certificate or contemporaneous public document evidencing the said relationship, Exs.A1 and A2 cannot, by themselves, establish that the appellant / plaintiff is the son of Sangili Servai.

18. The appellant / plaintiff's own evidence also assumes importance. He had admitted in his proof affidavit that he was aware of the distinction between the properties claimed as ancestral properties and those purchased by his father. In particular, in paragraph 10 of his affidavit, he stated that only the second item was ancestral property and that the remaining items had been purchased by his father, Sangili Servai. He further explained that the description of all the suit properties as ancestral properties in the plaint was due to the manner in which the plaint had been prepared. The above admission demonstrates that the appellant / plaintiff's claim regarding the nature and source of title of the suit properties was not entirely consistent with the original pleadings. More particularly, notwithstanding his assertion that the properties were purchased by his father, he did not produce any independent material to establish that he was the legal heir of the purchaser, namely, Sangili Servai.

19. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / plaintiff contended that the respondents / defendants had not established their case and that the Trial Court had rightly decreed the suit on the ground that the respondents / defendants failed to prove that the appellant / plaintiff was not the son of Sangili Servai. The said contention cannot be accepted. The initial burden of establishing title rests upon the appellant / plaintiff, who seeks a declaration of title. The appellant / plaintiff cannot succeed merely on the weakness of the respondents / defendants' case. When the respondents / defendants specifically disputed the appellant / plaintiff's relationship with the original owner and produced documentary materials in support of their contention, the burden remained upon the appellant / plaintiff to establish his own claim by acceptable evidence.

20. In the present case, the respondents / defendants relied upon Exs.B1 to B3 and Ex.B16, apart from the revenue proceedings under

Ex.B7, to dispute the appellant / plaintiff's identity and relationship. The said documents had to be considered cumulatively along with the oral evidence. The First Appellate Court, being the final Court of fact, has undertaken such an exercise and found that the appellant / plaintiff had failed to establish that he was the son of the Sangili Servai who owned the suit properties. It is also relevant to note that the proceedings under Ex.B7 refer to the existence of more than one person by the name of Krishnan in the family.

21. The contention that no specific issue was framed by the Trial Court regarding the relationship of the appellant / plaintiff with Sangili Servai also requires consideration. Though the framing of appropriate issues is an important procedural requirement, the absence of a specific issue would not automatically vitiate the ultimate decision, particularly when the parties were conscious of the controversy, adduced evidence on the same and contested the matter before the Courts below. In the present case, the relationship between the appellant / plaintiff and the original owner was the fundamental controversy between the parties. Both sides had an opportunity to adduce evidence in that regard. However, the Trial Court had proceeded on the erroneous premise that the respondents / defendants were required to establish that the appellant / plaintiff was not the son of Sangili Servai and that their failure to establish the same was sufficient to decree the suit. The Trial Court ought to have first examined whether the appellant / plaintiff had discharged his initial burden of proving his title and his relationship with the original owner.

22. The First Appellate Court, on the other hand, has considered the oral and documentary evidence, particularly the admissions of P.W.1 and Exs.B1 to B3, B7 and B16, and arrived at a finding that the appellant / plaintiff had failed to establish his relationship with the original owner. The First Appellate Court has also taken note of the respondents / defendants' claim of succession through Adhimoolam @ Periyampillai and the materials relating to their possession and enjoyment.

23. The findings of the First Appellate Court are based upon the appreciation of the evidence available on record. No perversity or legal infirmity has been demonstrated in the said findings. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant / plaintiff do not advance the appellant / plaintiff's case in the absence of proof of the fundamental fact necessary to establish his title.

24. In a suit for declaration of title, the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own title and not on the weakness or alleged deficiencies in the defence. In the present case, the appellant / plaintiff has failed to establish that he is the son of the Sangili Servai who owned the suit properties. Consequently, his claim of succession to the suit properties also remains unproved. The subsequent issuance of patta in his name cannot, by itself, cure the said deficiency.

25. The appellant / plaintiff has also alleged that he had perfected title by long and continuous possession. However, no specific pleadings containing the necessary ingredients of adverse possession have been made. A plea of adverse possession must be clear, specific and unequivocal, disclosing the commencement, nature and continuity of hostile possession against the true owner. Moreover, a person claiming title by succession cannot ordinarily assert hostile title against the very estate from which he claims succession. In the present case, apart from a bald assertion regarding long possession, no acceptable evidence has been adduced to establish the ingredients of adverse possession. Hence, the said plea is liable to be rejected.

26. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the

First Appellate Court has properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and rightly reversed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. The substantial questions of law are answered against the appellant / plaintiff.

27. In the result, the Second Appeal is dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, setting aside the judgment and decree of the Trial Court is confirmed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 05-11-2026 Index: Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation: Yes/No T. RAJAPRABA

To

1. The Subordinate Court, Sivagangai

2. The Principal District Munsif Court, Manamadurai.

3. The Section Officer VR Section Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai

THIRUMAGAL CHANDRASEKAR, J. T. RAJAPRABA SA(MD) No. 255 of 2014 05-11-2026