LAWS(MAD)-2026-1-102

THAVAMANI Vs. T. JAYAMANI

Decided On January 23, 2026
THAVAMANI Appellant
V/S
T. Jayamani Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision petitioner filed I.A. No.255 of 2020 in O.S. No.148 of 2014, under Order XXVI Rule 9 read with Sec. 151 of "the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908" ("CPC" for short) praying to order for the Advocate Commissioner's revisit to the suit schedule property and to measure the suit schedule property with the help of surveyor with reference to the defendant's sale deed. The same was dismissed by 'the District Munsif Court, Dharmapuri' ['Trial Court'] vide Order dated September 4, 2021. Feeling aggrieved by the dismissal, the present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, 1950 praying to set aside the same and allow the Interlocutory Application.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs is that an extent of 84 cents in S.No.391/1 in Erikodipatti Village and another extent of property in S.No.390/2, was originally owned by Marimuthuammal W/o. Ramasamy. Original owner Marimuthuammal died leaving behind her daughter Pachiammal. The said Pachiammal married one Marimuthu, out of their wedlock, no child was born. So, the said Marimuthu married one nd Kaveriammal as 2nd wife through whom the plaintiffs Mr.Thavamani and Mr.Selvamani were born. The father of the plaintiffs Mr.Marimuthu died in the year 2006 and his 1st wife Pachiammal also died in the year 2013. At this stage, the plaintiffs are the only legal heirs of the deceased. The original owner Pachiammal during her life time executed a Sale Deed in respect of an extent of 10 cents in S.No.391/1b in the year 1998 to one Devarajan. Thereafter, the said Pachiammal executed another sale deed in favour of the defendant for an extent of 5 cents in the same survey number. The case of the plaintiffs is that the defendant has encroached the suit schedule property beyond the 5 cents of land sold to him. Hence, the plaintiffs filed the suit in O.S. No.148 of 2014 before the Trial Court seeking for declaration, recovery of possession and mandatory injunction against the defendant in respect of the Suit schedule mentioned property.