SA/1000/2021 of CHELLAMMAL Vs ARJUNAN
S.A.No.1000 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
S.A.No.1000 of 2021
and C.M.P.No.18817 of 2021
1.Chellammal
2.Manimegalai ... Appellants
vs.
1.Arjunan
2.Kaliyan
3.Annamalai
4.Murugesan
Rajambal (since deceased)
5.Vijaya
6.Amudha
7.Malarkodi
8.Govindaraj
9.Elangovan ... Respondents
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 12.08.2021 made in
A.S.No.138 of 2019 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions
1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1000 of 2021
Judge, Cuddalore at Vridhachalam confirming the Judgment and Decree
dated 04.11.2017 made in O.S.No.144 of 2001 on the file of the Additional
District Munsif Court, Tittagudi in respect of the 2nd item of the suit property
alone by allowing this Second Appeal.
For Appellants : Mr.S.Rajesh
For R8 : Mr.C.Arunkumar
For R1 to R7 & R9 : Not ready in notice
J U D G M E N T
The unsuccessful plaintiffs in the suit are the appellants. They filed a
suit for declaration of title and injunction in respect of two items of
properties. The Trial Court decreed the suit in respect of 1st item and
dismissed the suit in respect of 2nd item. Aggrieved by the same, the
plaintiffs preferred an appeal. The First Appellate Court affirmed the
findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the
concurrent findings, the plaintiffs have come before this Court.
2. Since the second appeal is confined to dismissal of the suit in
respect of 2 nd item of the suit properties, the facts relating to the 2 nd item of
suit properties alone are discussed in this second appeal.
3. According to the appellants/plaintiffs, the suit 2 nd item is a Paattai
Poramboke (Road Poramboke). Originally the said property was occupied
2/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1000 of 2021
by one Karuthan Konar, 60 years ago. He died leaving behind his only son
Muthusamy Konar. The 1 st plaintiff entered into Sale Agreement with the
said Muthusamy Konar on 05.02.1979 and the possession of the suit Item-2
was given to the 1st plaintiff under the said Sale Agreement. Since the
property was classified as a ‘Paattai Poramboke’, no registered document
was entered into. It is further pleaded that the plaintiffs have been in
possession and enjoyment of the Item-2 of suit property by raising coconut
and drumstick trees. It was further pleaded that the defendants without
having any manner of right over the same, attempted to interfere with the
plaintiffs’ possession. Hence, the above said suit was laid seeking
declaration of plaintiffs’ possessory title over the suit Item-2 and for
injunction.
4. The defendants filed written statement and denied the claim of the
plaintiffs that the suit property has been in possession and enjoyment of the
plaintiffs and their predecessor-in-interest for more than 60 years. It was the
specific case of the defendants that the suit property is a Paattai Poramboke
leading to Karuppiah Temple. It is pleaded that all the Villagers including
the defendants have been using the suit Item-2 as an access to Karuppiah
Temple and hence, the plaintiffs were not entitled to maintain a suit for
3/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1000 of 2021
declaration of possessory title and injunction over the suit property. It was
also pleaded by the defendants that the Revenue Officials removed all the
encroachments in the suit Item-2 and facilitated access to the above said
Temple and the present suit had been filed by the plaintiffs without having
any manner of right. On these pleadings, the defendants sought for dismissal
of the suit.
5. Before the Trial Court, the 3 rd plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and
one Jayaraman was examined as PW.2. On behalf of the plaintiffs, 20
documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A20. The defendants 2, 3 and 11 were
examined as DW.1 to DW.3 and the Deputy Block Development Officer
was examined as DW.4. On behalf of the defendants, 4 documents were
marked as Exs.B1 to B5. The Trial Court appointed an Advocate
Commissioner and his report and plan were marked as Exs.C1 and C2. The
resolution passed by the Village Panchayat has been marked as Ex.X1.
6. The Trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence
available on record, came to the conclusion that the suit Item-2 was a Paattai
Poramboke facilitating access to Karuppiah Temple and hence, dismissed
the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants/plaintiffs preferred first
4/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1000 of 2021
appeal in A.S.No.138 of 2019 on the file of the III Additional District cum
Sessions Court, Cuddalore at Vridhachalam. The First Appellate Court
affirmed the findings of the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved
by the concurrent findings, the plaintiffs have come before this Court.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that
the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and
the possession of the plaintiffs has not been disturbed by the Government
Official and only the present defendants attempted to interfere with the
plaintiffs’ possession. Therefore, according to him, the suit was filed only
against the defendants and the First Appellate Court committed an error in
dismissing the suit on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. The
learned counsel also submitted that the plaintiffs by producing various
documents and evidences proved their possession over the suit property and
overlooking the same, the plaintiffs have been non-suited by the First
Appellate Court.
8. It is seen from the averment found in the plaint, the suit 2 nd item is
a Paattai Poramboke. Therefore, the Government is the owner of the said
property. The appellants/plaintiffs seek declaration of their possessory title
5/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1000 of 2021
over the suit Item-2. The present suit filed by the plaintiffs without
impleading the original owner of Item-2 of the property is not at all
maintainable. The Courts below on proper appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the
suit Item-2 is a Paattai Poramboke belonged to the Government and suit
filed by the plaintiffs without impleading the Government, was not
maintainable. In the absence of owner of the property, the plaintiffs are not
entitled to seek declaration of their possessory title.
9. When it is admitted by both the parties that suit Item-2 is a Paattai
Poramboke (Road Poramboke), all the residents of the Village and General
Public are entitled to use it as an access. No person is entitled to occupy the
same and assert right over the said road poramboke. The encroachment on
the road poramboke, which is meant for public use is an objectionable
encroachment and Court cannot exercise its discretion in favour of the
person, who is in objectionable possession of Paattai Poramboke. The prayer
for injunction is equitable remedy. This Court already came to the
conclusion that the prayer for declaration of possessory title over the Pattai
Poramboke cannot be maintained without impleading the original owner
namely the Government. The Courts below on proper appreciation of oral
6/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1000 of 2021
and documentary evidence available on record, came to a conclusion that the
plaintiffs were not entitled to occupy Paattai Poramboke and prevent access
of the Villagers to Karuppiah Temple. The Courts below rightly found that
the plaintiffs’ possession was unlawful one and hence, the same could not be
protected by granting a decree for permanent injunction. I do not find any
perversity in the findings rendered by the Courts below.
10. In Nutshell:-
(i) The Second Appeal is dismissed as devoid of any substantial question
of law.
(ii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to
costs.
(iii) Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
24.04.2026
Index : Yes / No
Speaking order : Yes / No
Neutral Citation : Yes / No
dm
To
1.The III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
Cuddalore at Vridhachalam.
2.The Additional District Munsif Court, Tittagudi.
7/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
S.A.No.1000 of 2021
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
dm
S.A.No.1000 of 2021
24.04.2026
8/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis