IN THE COURT OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT MUNSIF AT TINDIVANAM
Present: Tmt.N.ANU PRIYA, B.A.,B.L.,(Hons)
Principal District Munsif,
Tindivanam.
Monday, the 14th day of July 2025
ORIGINAL SUIT NO.133/2019
CNR No. TNVPOF - 000229– 2019
Elumalai ... Plaintiff
-vs-
1. Ayyanar
2. Subramani
3. Sekar
4. Uma
5. Sugan
6. Akash
7. Karnan
8. Navaneetham
9. Chinnaraj ... Defendants
This suit having coming on 02.07.2025 before me for final hearing in the
presence of Tr.E.Ayyanar, learned counsel for the Plaintiff and Thiru.E.Velmurugan,
learned counsel for defendants filed written statement and partly cross-examined
PW-1 and subsequently called absent and were set exparte, on perusal of records,
having stood over for consideration till this day, this Court delivers the following:
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has filed this plaint seeking the relief of permanent injunction
restraining defendants, their men, agents servants or anybody claiming under them
OS.No.133/2019 PDM, Tindivanam. 1 14.07.2025
not to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff
over the suit property and for cost of the suit and other suitable orders.
2. The brief averments of the plaint:-
2.1 The suit property was enjoyed by Ammaiyappan, the father of the plaintiff. On
20.01.1997, a notice has been issued to the plaintiff for enquiry to issue manaivari
patta by the Special Thasildar and on 20.05.1997, Natham Land Survey Scheme
Special Thasildar, Tindivanam has issued Natham Land Survey Scheme Patta in
favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has paid house tax for the house in the suit
property and house tax receipt has been issued. On 01.03.2014, 31.03.2018 the
plaintiff paid house tax and house tax receipt has been issued. The plaintiff has paid
electricity charges for the house in Substation, TamilNadu Electricity Board,
Tindivanam.
2.2 The plaintiff gave a representation to the Revenue Tribunal, Tindivanam on
18.06.2019 to measure and demarcate the house site and a receipt has been issued. On
18.06.2019, the plaintiff deposited Rs.80/- for the measurement and demarcation and
a receipt has been issued. Again on 17.06.2019, a representation has been given to
measure and demarcate the house in S.No.210/17. On 19.07.2019, when the
Surveyor measured the suit property and laid the boundary stone, defendants gathered
together, scolded, grabbed and throwed the boundary stone. The plaintiff gave
information to Kiliyanur Police Station and CSR has been issued vide CSR receipt
OS.No.133/2019 PDM, Tindivanam. 2 14.07.2025
No.629/2019. On 03.07.2019, the plaintiff gave a complaint to the District Collector,
Villupuram for the act of defendants and it has been forwarded to Superintendent,
Villupuram district for further action. Defendants, without any right and title over the
suit property, is trying to grab the plaintiff’s property with the help of agents and
rowdy elements. Hence filed this suit.
3. The brief averments of the written statement filed by the 2 nd defendant
and adopted by defendants 1, 3 to 9 :-
3.1 The averments in the plaint are denied except admitted. The suit property in
punja S.No.204/7 – 0.06.5 acres land is ancestral property of Veeraragavan and the 2nd
defendant Subramani and enjoying as joint family property. While enjoying the
property, Veeraragavan died 15 years ago. Chinnaraj, late Amachi, late Aadhilakshmi
and Navaneetham are legal heirs of Veeraragavan and enjoying the suit property by
constructing a house. The plaintiff has no right and title over the suit property. The
punjai S.No.204/7 was divided into natham S.No.210/15 – 00228 sq mt and natham
S.No.210/17 – 00442 sq mt. The natham patta for the suit property issued in the
name of the plaintiff is not valid. The patta filed by the plaintiff is for Natham vacant
punja land.
3.2 The 2nd defendant constructed a house in the front portion of the suit property
and the 8th defendant has constructed a house in the back side portion of the suit
property and is in possession for 15 years. The house receipts mentioned in the plaint
OS.No.133/2019 PDM, Tindivanam. 3 14.07.2025
are not related to the suit property. The plaintiff has not filed any patta or registered
documents to show that the suit property is acquired through ancestors. As the 2 nd
defendant and his brother Veeraragavan are in continuous possession for more than
50 years with the knowledge of the plaintiff, has gained adverse possession right.
Defendants 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 are not necessary parties and the suit is hit by misjoinder of
necessary parties. The plaintiff has filed this suit without any primafacie case.
3.3 As the plaintiff has not co-operated for the enquiry conducted by the police
official, based on the complaint given by the plaintiff, it was closed upon verification
of the records. Defendants has not scolded and intimidated the plaintiff on
03.07.2019 as alleged in the plaint. The plaintiff has filed the suit without any right
or title over the suit property and also there is no cause of action. Hence the suit may
be dismissed with exemplary cost.
4. Based on the pleadings, the following issues are framed on 01.02.2020 :
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the permanent injunction as
prayed for?
(ii) Whether the suit property belongs to deceased Veeraragavan and 2 nd
defendant?
(iii) Whether the 2nd defendant and the 8th defendant constructed the
house and in possession of the suit property?
(iv) Whether the defendant are having adverse possession over the suit
property?
(v) To what other reliefs plaintiff is entitled for?
5. On the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff examined herself as PW-1 and marked
Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-50. PW-2, PW-3 were examined. PW-1 was cross-examined partly
OS.No.133/2019 PDM, Tindivanam. 4 14.07.2025
by defendants and subsequently defendants failed to appear before this court and they
set ex-parte on 22.02.2023.
6. The arguments heard on the side of the plaintiff. The written arguments was
filed by the plaintiff. The entire records perused.
7. Contention of the Plaintiff:-
7.1 The contention of the plaintiff is that manaivari thorraya patta has been issued
in the name of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is in continuous possession and
enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff constructed a house and paying property
tax, house tax and electricity charges. Defendants are interfering with the enjoyment
of the plaintiff in the suit property and also trying to alienate the suit property. Hence
the plaintiff filed this suit for permanent injunction.
7.2 The Plaintiff in order to support his contention examined himself as PW-1 and
marked Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-50. He also examined independent witnesses as PW-2 and
PW-3.
8. Discussion:-
8.1 Issues No.1 to 4 are interlinked to each other. Hence these issues are
discussed together.
The main contention of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is in possession of the
suit property by constructing house. Defendants are interfering with the peaceful
possession and enjoyment of the suit property and hence filed this suit.
OS.No.133/2019 PDM, Tindivanam. 5 14.07.2025
8.2 Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 provides the situations when suit
for permanent injunction can be granted and states that:-
(1) Subject to the other provisions contained in or referred to by this
Chapter, a perpetual injunction may be granted to the plaintiff to
prevent the breach of an obligation existing in his favour, whether
expressly or by implication.
(2) When any such obligation arises from contract, the court shall be
guided by the rules and provisions contained in Chapter II.
(3) When the defendant invades or threatens to invade the plaintiff’s
right to, or enjoyment of, property, the court may grant a perpetual
injunction in the following cases, namely:
(a) where the defendant is trustee of the property for the plaintiff;
(b) where there exists no standard for ascertaining the actual damage
caused, or likely to be caused, by the invasion;
(c) where the invasion is such that compensation in money would not
afford adequate relief;
(d) where the injunction is necessary to prevent a multiplicity of
judicial proceedings.
It is a well laid down law of the land, that there cannot be any perpetual
injunction under Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, until the Plaintiff has duly
explained and substantiated the alleged threat of dispossession and the loss caused to
him or the manner in which it is not compensable in terms of money or how it avoids
multiplicity of judicial proceedings.
OS.No.133/2019 PDM, Tindivanam. 6 14.07.2025
8.3 The contention of the plaintiff is that he is in possession and enjoyment in the
suit property based on the patta issued by Special Thasildar, Natham Land Survey
Scheme, Tindivanam. In order to establish the same, the plaintiff has filed Ex.A-8 and
Ex.A-9. Ex.A-8 is the notice dated 20.01.1997 issued by the Special Thasildar,
Tindivanam to the plaintiff for enquiry and Ex.A-9 is the patta issued in the name of
the plaintiff for the S.No.210/17. The further contention of the plaintiff is that he has
paid house tax, property and electricity charges and in order to establish the same, the
plaintiff has filed Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-7, Ex.A.10 to Ex.A-12, Ex.A-16.
8.4 But defendants pleaded that the property in punja S.No.204/7 – 0.06.5 acres
land is ancestral property of Veeraragavan and the 2 nd defendant Subramani and
enjoying as joint family property, while enjoying the property, Veeraragavan died 15
years ago and his legal heirs Chinnaraj, late Amachi, late Aadhilakshmi and
Navaneetham are enjoying the suit property by constructing a house, the plaintiff has
no right and title over the suit property, the punjai S.No.204/7 was divided into
natham S.No.210/15 – 00228 sq mt and natham S.No.210/17 – 00442 sq mt, the
natham patta for the suit property issued in the name of the plaintiff is not valid and
the patta filed by the plaintiff is for Natham vacant punja land, that the 2 nd and 8 th
defendant are in possession and enjoyment in the suit property by constructing a
house in the suit property. But defendants failed to adduce oral and documentary
evidence to substantiate their plea.
OS.No.133/2019 PDM, Tindivanam. 7 14.07.2025
8.5 Further, the Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-7, Ex.A.10 to Ex.A-12, Ex.A-16 would clearly
show that the Plaintiff is in possession of the house and paying all the taxes payable
towards the government authorities. Upon conjoint reading of PW1 evidence and
Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-7, Ex.A.10 to Ex.A-12, Ex.A-16, it is prima facie evidenced about
the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment in the suit property. This court considers that
the oral evidence of PW1 and documentary evidences Ex.A-1 to Ex.A-7, Ex.A.10 to
Ex.A-12, Ex.A-16 produced on behalf of the plaintiff categorically established the
plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment over the suit property as on the date of the
presentation of this suit. Hence, the plaintiff has discharged his initial burden of
proof regarding the possession of the suit property.
8.6 The further contention of the plaintiff is that defendants were trying to
encroach the suit property illegally and committed trespass in the suit property. The
attempt made by defendants were wholly illegal. Defendants are no way connected
with suit property. In order to establish the same, the plaintiff has filed Ex.A-13 to
Ex.A-15, Ex.A-17 to Ex.A-50. This court finds that the disturbance of defendants is
evidenced from the oral evidence of PW1 and duly proved. It is a well established
principle of law that the possession of a party cannot be disturbed except as per due
process of law. This Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff has already
discharged his onus of proof regarding the possession of the suit property and hence,
OS.No.133/2019 PDM, Tindivanam. 8 14.07.2025
no person has any right to interfere with the possession of the suit properties, except
as per procedure established by law.
8.7 Further, it is pertinent to note that the averments of the plaint, the evidence of
the PW-1 and the documents filed by the plaintiff are unchallenged before this Court.
Further in support of the evidence of the plaintiff, PW-2 and PW-3 also deposed their
evidence that the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. This
court is of the view that there is absolutely no materials to disbelieve the case of the
plaintiff. From the above discussion, it is clear that the plaintiff proved that he is in
actual and physical possession of the suit property as on the date of presentation of
the suit. Defendants interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the
plaintiff in the suit property. Hence, this court is inclined to grant permanent
injunction restraining defendants and their agents from peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit property. Issue No.1 is answered in favour of the plaintiff and
Issue No.2 to 4 are not answered in favour of defendants.
8.8 Issue No.5
On considering the facts and nature of the case, this court finds that the
plaintiff is not entitled for any other reliefs and parties shall bear their own Costs.
Accordingly this issue is answered.
In the result, the suit is decreed as granting permanent injunction
restraining defendants, their men, agents, servants or anybody claiming under
OS.No.133/2019 PDM, Tindivanam. 9 14.07.2025
them not to interfere with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment over
the suit property. No Costs.
Dictated to the Steno-typist, typed by her in the Computer directly, printed, corrected
and pronounced by me in open Court on this the 14th day of July 2025. Digitally signed by
ANUPRIYA
ANUPRIYA Location:
PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT MUNSIF
TINDIVANAM
Principal District Munsif,
Tindivanam.
LIST OF WITNESS AND EXHIBITS
PLAINTIFF SIDE WITNESSES:
PW-1: Elumalai (Plaintiff)
PW-2: Manoranjitham (3rd Party)
PW-3: Ramaraj (3rd Party)
PLAINTIFF SIDE EXHIBITS:
Ex.A-1 - Electricity bill receipt in the name of the Plaintiff –
Original
Ex.A-2 - House tax Receipt in the name of the Plaintiff - True
Copy
Ex.A-3 - Land tax in the name of the Plaintiff - True Copy
Ex.A-4 - Kist Receipt in the name of the Plaintiff - True Copy
Ex.A-5 - Receipt of deposit made in the name of the plaintiff to the
Electricity Board - True Copy
Ex.A-6 - Receipt of deposit made in the name of the plaintiff to the
Electricity Board - True Copy
OS.No.133/2019 PDM, Tindivanam. 10 14.07.2025
Ex.A-7 - Electricity bill in the name of the plaintiff - True Copy
Ex.A-8 -
Notice issued by Special Thasildar – Original
Ex.A-9 31.03.1997 Manaivari Thoraya Patta issued in the name of the plaintiff
- Original
Ex.A-10 31.03.2003 House tax receipt in the name of the plaintiff - Original
Ex.A-11 06.08.2016 House tax receipt in the name of the plaintiff - Original
Receipts for payment of electricity bill for plaintiff
electricity connection no. 310 dated 13.09.1995,
12.12.1995, 06.02.1996, 12.03.1996, 12.06.1996,
11.10.1996, 10.04.1997, 10.06.1997,11.08.1997,
14.10.1997, 06.02.1998, 13.04.1998, 10.08.1998,
Ex.A-12 - 11.03.1997, 08.02.2000, 08.06.2000, 09.08.2000,
14.08.2000, 06.12.2000, 11.12.2001, 04.02.2002,
08.04.2002, 09.04.2003, (No date) 13.06.2006, 13.02.2007,
08.08.2007, 13.10.2008, 15.12.2008, 12.02.2009,
08.06.2009, 05.08.2009, 06.12.2009, 13.04.2010,
05.08.2021 – Original – 35 Nos.
Ex.A-13 07.09.2019 Copy of objection application – Xerox
Ex.A-14 19.09.2023
Copy of the notice seeking explanation – Xerox
Ex.A-15 20.09.2023 Acknowledgment Card - Original
House tax receipts dated 2023-2024, 29.03.2008,
Ex.A-16 - 20.02.2009, 09.02.2010, 28.03.2011, 27.03.2012,
16.02.2013, 31.03.2019, 29.03.2021, 2021-2022,
30.03.2023 - Original – 11 Nos.
OS.No.133/2019 PDM, Tindivanam. 11 14.07.2025
Copy of the petition to the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ex.A-17 17.02.2022 Tindivanam and Sub Divisional Administrative Tribunal
Revenue Court - Xerox
Ex.A-18 05.01.2023 Acknowledgment card – Original
Copy of the petition to the Revenue Divisional Officer,
Ex.A-19 19.08.2023
Tindivanam and Sub Divisional Administrative Tribunal –
Office Copy
Copy of the petition of the Office of the Sub Collector and
Ex.A-20 the Sub-Divisional Administrative Tribunal dated – Office
14.09.2023
Copy
Ex.A-21 17.06.2019 Acknowledgment receipt - Xerox
Ex.A-22 07.09.2019 Copy of the petition - Xerox
Ex.A-23
13.09.2019 Memorandum
Ex.A-24 11.11.2019
-(2) 3 Number of copies of acknowledgment receipts - Xerox
09.12.2019
Ex.A-25 19.07.2019 criminal complaint and receipts - Xerox
Ex.A-26 28.07.2019 Police summon
Ex.A-27 05.09.2019 Copy of the complaint given to the Sub- Inspector of
Kiliyanur Police Station - Xerox
Ex.A-28 07.09.2019 Acknowledgment Card - Original
OS.No.133/2019 PDM, Tindivanam. 12 14.07.2025
Ex.A-29 05.11.2019 Copy of the complaint and online acknowledgment –
Xerox
Ex.A-30 05.11.2019 Memorandum of Kiliyanur Police Station
Ex.A-31 28.02.2020
Copies of the complaint and petition receipt – Xerox
Ex.A-32 02.09.2020
Copy of the notice seeking explanation – Xerox
Ex.A-33 02.09.2020 Acknowledgment card - Original
Ex.A-34 10.09.2020 Opened postal envelope Cover - Original
Ex.A-35 12.07.2021 Copy of complaint and online acknowledgment – Xerox
Ex.A-36 18.01.2022 Copy of complaint and online acknowledgment - Office
Copy
Ex.A-37 30.09.2022 Police summon
Ex.A-38 28.09.2022
Opened postal envelope Cover - Original
Ex.A-39
23.09.2023 Copy of complaint and online acknowledgment – Xerox
Ex.A-40 27.09.2023 Copy of complaint and online acknowledgment – Xerox
Ex.A-41 08.07.2019 Copy of the complaint and online acknowledgment –
Xerox
OS.No.133/2019 PDM, Tindivanam. 13 14.07.2025
Ex.A-42 07.08.2019 Copy of complaint – Xerox
Ex.A-43 05.09.2019 Copy of complaint – Xerox
Ex.A-44 26.10.2019 Copy of complaint receipt – Xerox
Ex.A-45 11.11.2019 Copy of complaint receipt – Xerox
Ex.A-46 20.11.2019 Copy of complaint – Xerox
Ex.A-47 09.12.2019 Copy of complaint receipt– Xerox
Ex.A-48 28.02.2020 Copy of complaint – Xerox
Ex.A-49 02.03.2020 2 Number of Acknowledgment card - Original
Ex.A-50 27.09.2023 Copy of complaint and online acknowledgment – Xerox
DEFENDANTS SIDE WITNESS :- - NIL - Digitally signed by
ANUPRIYA
DEFENDANTS SIDE EXHIBITS:- - NIL - ANUPRIYA
Location:
PRINCIPAL
DISTRICT
MUNSIF
TINDIVANAM
Principal District Munsif,
Tindivanam.
OS.No.133/2019 PDM, Tindivanam. 14 14.07.2025
