SA Nos.41 and 42 of 2003 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Date of Reserved 07/04/2026 Date of Pronounced 02/07/2026 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.POORNIMA SA Nos.41 and 42 of 2003 and CMP(M)Nos.4007 of 2006 and 13085 of 2024 (1)SA No.41 of 2003:- 1.Singarayan (Died) : 1st Appellant/1st Petitioner/ 2.Ramaniboy 1st Plaintiff 3.Marisheelarani 4.Bright 5.Dinesh Singh 6.Mari Ajitharani 7.Agustus Singh (Appellants 2 to 7 are brought on record as LR.s of the deceased sole appellant, vide Court order, dated 19/07/2021 made in CMP(MD)No. 6935 of 2018 in SA No.41 of 2003 and CMP(MD)No.6936 of 2018 in SA No.42 of 2003) Vs. 1.John 2.Vedanayagam 3.Kitheri 4.George 5.Alexander (Died) 6.Chellappan alias Vijayanthi 1/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA Nos.41 and 42 of 2003 7.Payas 8.Lasamma 9.Michael 10.Rajammal 11.Meenas 12.Ramanibai 13.Karmal Madha Church, Vavara rep. By its Rev. Father Devadasan 14.Rajammal 15.Muthammal 16.Christinal 17.Carmel Mary 18.Glory 19.Franklin 20.Mercy : Respondents 1 to 21/Respondents/ 21.C.Benjamin 3rd Plaintiff and D2, D3, D4, (R21 is impleaded, vide Court D5, D7, D9 and D12 to D24 order, dated 04/04/2018 made in CMP(MD)No.139 of 2017 in 41 of 2003) 22.Thankabai 23.Katharin Vijila 24.Jokin : Respondents 22 to 24 (R22 to R24 are brought on record as LR.s of the deceased 5th Respondent, vide Court order, dated 19/07/2021 made in CMP(M)Nos.4485 and 4486 of 2018 in SA No.41 of 2003) PRAYER: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree in AS No.1 of 1996, dated 06/09/2002 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai, pursuant to the judgment and decree in IA No.72 of 1983 in OS No.341 of 1972, dated 28/09/1995 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai. 2/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA Nos.41 and 42 of 2003 For Appellants : Mr.PT.S.Narendravasan for Mr.R.Nandakumar For R13, R16 to R21 : Mr.K.N.Thambi For R23 and R24 : Mr.D.Nallathambi R1, R3, R4, R8, R12, R15 and R22 : Died (Memo filed and recorded) For 7th Respondent : No appearance 5th Respondent : Died (Steps taken) For R2, R6 and R9 : Dismissed as abated, vide court order, dated 19/06/2023 For R10, R11 and R14 : Batta due (2)SA No.42 of 2003:- 1.Singarayan (Died) : 1st Appellant/1st Petitioner/ 2.Ramaniboy 1st Plaintiff 3.Marisheelarani 4.Bright 5.Dinesh Singh 6.Mari Ajitharani 7.Agustus Singh (Appellants 2 to 7 are brought on record as LR.s of the deceased sole appellant, vide Court order, dated 19/07/2021 made in CMP(MD)No. 6935 of 2018 in SA No.41 of 2003 and CMP(MD)No.6936 of 2018 in SA No.42 of 2003) Vs. 3/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA Nos.41 and 42 of 2003 1.Rajammal 2.Muthammal 3.Christinal 4.Carmel Mary 5.Glory 6.Franklin 7.Mercy : Respondents/Respondents/ Defendants 2 to 8 PRAYER: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree in AS No.159 of 1996, dated 06/09/2002 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Kuzhithurai, pursuant to the judgment and decree in OS No.6 of 1988, dated 09/10/1995 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai. For Appellants : Mr.PT.S.Narendravasan for Mr.R.Nandakumar For R3 to R7 : Mr.K.N.Thambi For R2 : Memo filed in SR No.1366 For 1st Respondent : Batta due COMMON JUDGMENT These second appeals arise out of the common judgment passed by the Sub Judge, Kuzhithurai, in A.S Nos.1 of 1996 and 159 of 1996, dated 06/09/2002. 4/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA Nos.41 and 42 of 2003 2.A.S No.1 of 1996 arises out of the judgment and decree passed in I.A. No.72 of 1983 in O.S No.341 of 1972, dated 28/09/1995, whereas A.S. No.159 of 1996 arises out of the judgment and decree passed in O.S No.6 of 1998, dated 09/10/1995 by the Additional District Munsif, Kuzhithurai. 3.Suit O.S No.341 of 1972 has been filed by the present 1st appellant Singarayan and two others against the deceased R.Elias and 12 others for declaration of title over B schedule property, and right and possession over plot No.3 in the plaint schedule. The plaintiffs claimed partition and separate possession over 1/24th share in A schedule Item No.1 and also 1/6th share by purchase under sale deeds dated 04/11/1967 and 04/05/1972. 4.1.The first defendant filed his written statement contending that he is entitled to 1/6th share. He further contended that the entire suit schedule property originally belonged to one Gnanasoundarajan. He died leaving behind his six children namely Sabarimuthu, Marian, Visenthi, Stanislas, Raphel, and Rosi, each entitled to 1/6thshare. The first defendant and Vedanayagam, the second defendant are sons of Rosi. After the death of Rosi, the entire share of Rosi devolved upon the 5/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA Nos.41 and 42 of 2003 defendants 1 and 2 who are his surviving legal heirs. Subsequently, the second defendant released his entire right in the suit schedule property in favour of the first defendant. 4.2.The first defendant further contended that he redeemed all the prior mortgages, which were subsisting in respect of his 1/6th share in the suit property. He is in possession and enjoyment of 1/6th share in a specific plot with well-defined boundaries on all sides. There is a building situated in the specific plot, which is in his possession and he is residing in the said building. He further claimed some trees in the suit properties. 5.Likewise, the other defendants have also filed their written statement by claiming that they had purchased property and constructed buildings and prayed to allot their respective shares according to their user. 6.On the basis of the pleadings of both sides, the trial Court framed the following issues:- 1.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to and in possession of 1/4th share in the plaint A schedule item 1? 6/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA Nos.41 and 42 of 2003 2.Whether the plaint A schedule item 1 is enjoyed in plots as alleged in the plaint? 3.Whether the plaintiffs are in possession of 1/4th share in A schedule item 1 in the southern portion in an east to west direction touching the road on the east and the pathway on the south? 4.Whether the agreement and surrender between the father of plaintiffs and defendants 5 to 10 regarding A schedule items 1 and 2 is true? 5.Whether the defendants 5 to 11 put up a bunk shop in the plaintiff's plot on 18/05/1972 by trespass? 6.Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to get recovery of plaint B schedule property? 7.Are the plaintiffs entitled to the partition prayed for? 8.What are the shares of the respective parties? 9.To what reliefs, plaintiffs are entitled? 7/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA Nos.41 and 42 of 2003 7.During trial, on the side of the plaintiffs, two witnesses were examined as PW1 to PW2 and 6 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A6. On the side of the defendants, three witnesses were examined as DW1 to DW3 and 35 documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B35. The Commissioner's report and plan were marked as Exs.C1 to C4. 8.After considering the evidence and records, the trial Court passed a preliminary decree for partition of 1/4th share in the plaint schedule item No.1 in favour of the plaintiffs and 1/6thshare in favour defendants 1 and 2; 1/6th share in favour of 3rd defendant, 1/3rd share in favour of 4th defendant and the defendants 5 to 12 and 13 are entitled to 37 cents in plaint B schedule survey No.2032. 9.Subsequently, IA No.72 of 1983 in OS No. 341 of 1972 was filed for passing the final decree. In that application, on the side of the plaintiffs, one witness was examined, and on the side of the defendants, one witness was examined, and one Sundaradass was examined as a Court Witness, and through him, Exs.C5 to C9 were marked. On 8/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA Nos.41 and 42 of 2003 28/09/1995, the final decree was also passed, and the plaintiffs were allotted the following items:- 1st Plaintiff – A Plot – 12.705 cents. 2nd Plaintiff – A1 plot – 750 sq. links. 3rd Plaintiff – A2 plot – 750 sq. links, plot 2 – 1 cent. 10.Against which, AS No.1 of 1996 has been filed before the Sub Court, Kuzhithurai, by the 1st plaintiff. 11.Another suit O.S No.6 of 1988 was filed by the 1st plaintiff, who is the 1st appellant in AS No.159 of 1996 along with two others. 12.The brief facts in the plaint in OS No.6 of 1988 is as follows:- The suit schedule properties originally belonged to one Vedanayagam. On 03/02/1948, he mortgaged the property in favour of 9/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA Nos.41 and 42 of 2003 one Devasahayam for five years. Subsequently, the said Devasahayam assigned the said mortgage in favour of the 1st defendant R.Elias on 31/12/1966. The said properties were conveyed in his favour by Vedanayagam. In that sale deed, he was permitted to redeem the mortgage. The said Vedanayagam was an Agriculturist and he is entitled for the benefit under the Debt Relief Act. Further, the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the property for almost 30 years and the mortgaged money was also redeemed. Therefore, the plaintiff was permitted to redeem the property without paying any mortgage money. The property was mortgaged on 03/02/1948 and as per the condition, 5 years completed on 02/02/1953 and therefore, the plaintiff is having right to redeem the property. 13.The first defendant, disputing the claim of the plaintiff, contended that he is not an assignee. He further contended that the suit property belonged to one Rosi, his father. His father entitled to 1/6th share, which is equivalent to 10 cents. After the death of the said Rosi, the said property devolved upon himself and his brother Vedanayagam. Apart from the above property, both got another 10 cents in Survey No.2031. Subsequently, his brother Vedanayagam released his share namely 5 cents in S.No.2032 orally in his favour and also handed over 10/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA Nos.41 and 42 of 2003 the physical possession to him, as the 2nd defendant had released his half share in respect of property situated in S.No.2031. Therefore, he became the absolute owner of the entire 1/6th share in the suit property. He paid the entire mortgaged amount and redeemed the property and now there is no mortgage exists. There is a building situated in the suit schedule property and he is living in the said property and the plaintiff or his ancestor have no right over the property. Previously, OS No.341 of 1972 was filed by the plaintiff against him and in order to defeat his right, he filed this suit after creation of the fraudulent documents, on 24/11/1987 by the plaintiff. Further, the claim of the plaintiff is barred by res- judicata. The plaintiff, who is a Government servant is having a number of properties and has no right to claim relief under the Debt Relief and Recovery Act. Further, first defendant has perfected his title to the said property by adverse possession, having been in open continuous, uninterrupted, and hostile position for the statutory period to the knowledge of the original owner. In the revenue records, his name has been included in respect of 10 cents of the land and he is paying kist and house tax and other documents are available to show his possession and enjoyment. 11/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA Nos.41 and 42 of 2003 14.During trial, on the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff was examined himself as PW1and 6 documents were marked as Ex.A1 to A6. On the side of the defendants, the third defendant has been examined as DW1 and 22 documents were marked as Exs.B1 to B22. 15.On the basis of pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has framed the following issues:- 1.Is the suit not maintainable? 2.Is the plaintiff entitled to redeem? 3.Is the defendant in possession of the suit property as Mortgagee? 4.Is the suit mortgage subsisting? 5.Are the contentions of the defendant is barred by estoppel? 6.Is the sale deed relied on by the plaintiff void as contended by the defendant? 7.Is the plaint claim barred by estoppel? 8.Is the suit barred by res-judicata by reason of judgment in OS No.341/1972 of this Court? 9.Is the plaintiff the benefits of the Agriculturists Relief Act? 12/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA Nos.41 and 42 of 2003 10.Is the plea of adverse possession raised by the defendant true and tax tenable? 11.To what relief the plaintiff entitled? 16.The following additional issue was framed on 09/10/1995:- 1.Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 17.After considering the entire facts and records, the trial Court dismissed the suit by its judgment and decree, dated 09/10/1995. Against which, the plaintiff filed AS No.159 of 1996. 18.Both the appeals were tried together and by the first appellate Court and both the appeals namely A.S Nos.1 of 1996 and 159 of 1996 were dismissed by confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Against which, these second appeals were filed. 19.At the time of admitting both the second appeals, the following substantial questions of law were framed by this Court for consideration:- a.When the preliminary decree for partition specifically provided that defendants 1 and 2 were 13/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA Nos.41 and 42 of 2003 jointly entitled to 1/6th share in item one of the suit property, each being entitled to 1/12th share, whether the final decree court had jurisdiction to get behind the preliminary decree and hold that the 2nd defendant or his alienee, the first plaintiff, was not entitled to 1/12th share and that the first defendant was not entitled to the entire 1/6th share? b.Whether the final decree court can go behind the preliminary decree and pass a final decree overlooking section 97 C.P.C? c.Whether the finding of the lower court that the second defendant orally sold 1/2th share in item one to the first defendant is sustainable in law in view of section 54 of Transfer of Property Act? 14/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA Nos.41 and 42 of 2003 20.During the pendency of the second appeals, a memo has been filed by the appellants in SA No.41 of 2003 stating that R5, R22, R6, R8, R9 and R15 were died and the same is recorded. 21.The learned counsel appearing for the appellants in SA No.41 of 2003 filed a written submission by stating he had filed suit O.S.No. 341/1972, claiming 2 share from out of six share. The preliminary decree passed in O.S.No.341 of 1972 is not in accordance with law and it should be effected according to the present possession and enjoyment of the parties. The manner of partition is to be effected according to the present possession and enjoyment of the parties. The graveyard of R.Elias comes under B1 plot has to be allotted to R.Elias and Muthammal, 1/6th to Elias’s and Vedanayagam. On the northern end white colour graveyard belongs to the Kithery family ‘C’ plot owner. On the south western side of the ‘A’ schedule item No.1, Visanthi’s family graveyard is situated. On the south western side, Gnanasoundarajan’s graveyard is situated. But the Commissioner, in the final decree proceedings, without properly measuring the total length of road frontage and allotting the proportionate road frontage to each sharer, in a biased manner allotted 15/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA Nos.41 and 42 of 2003 plots in a random manner, which could be seen from the Commissioner’s plan. This aspect has been overlooked by the Courts below. Therefore, the judgment and decree of the Courts below are liable to be set aside, and an Advocate Commissioner may be appointed for allocation of the share with equal road frontage to all the shareholders. 22.In S.A No.42 of 2003, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants argued that Vedanayagam had mortgaged his share to one Devasahayam on 03/02/1948 under Ex.A1. Thereafter, the first plaintiff Singarayan purchased the property on 24/11/1987 under Ex.A2. Therefore, the 1st plaintiff Singarayan filed O.S No.6 of 1988 for redemption. Since the mortgage period came to an end on 03/02/1983, the mortgage is a usufructuary mortgage and possession had been handed over to the mortgagor, as per the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment reported in (2014) 9 SCC 185 in the case of Singh Ram (Dead) through Legal Representatives Vs. Sheo Ram and Others, there is no time limit fixed for usufructuary mortgagor to seek redemption and recovery of possession of immovable property mortgaged. The right to seek redemption would accrue not from the date of creation of the mortgage 16/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA Nos.41 and 42 of 2003 but from the date of payment of the mortgage money out of usufructs or partly out of usufructs and partly on payment or deposit by mortgagor as provided under Section 62 of the Transfer of Property Act. Until then, limitation would not start under Article 61 and as such, mere expiry of period prescribed thereunder would not extinguish mortgagor’s right of redemption or entitle mortgagee to seek declaration of title and ownership over mortgaged property. 23.On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents reiterated the contention, in both appeals and the written statement filed before the trial Court and stated that since the 1st defendant, who acquired the property by way of release deed from his brother, is entitled for 1/6th share in the suit properties. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgments namely (i)AIR 1973 KERALA 270 (V60 C 89) in the case of Mathew Mathew Vs. Alexander Muthalali; (ii)2022(4) CTC 436 in the case of Pitchi and others Vs. ParameswaranPillai and 199 others; (iii)1998 MLJ-I-129 in the case of Thankamma and others Vs. SanthakumariAmma and another and prayed for dismissal of the appeals. 17/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA Nos.41 and 42 of 2003 24.Heard both sides and perused the materials available on record. ANSWER TO THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW: 25.The 1st plaintiff, who is the appellant in A.S Nos.41 and 42 of 2003, filed the suit in O.S No.341 of 1972 seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession against one R.Elias, his brother Vedanayagam, and eleven others. In the said suit, the 1st plaintiff himself admitted that defendants 1 and 2 were entitled to 1/6th share in the suit property. The principal dispute in both suits revolved around the rights of the plaintiffs and defendants 1 and 2. 26.The 2nd defendant, Vedanayagam, though served with notice, remained absent and was set ex-parte. The 1st defendant, R.Elias, filed his written statement contending that the suit property originally belonged to one Gnanasoundarajan and that he, being the grandson of Gnanasoundarajan through his son Rosi was entitled to a share therein. According to him, after the death of Rosi, he and his brother Vedanayagam became entitled to 1/6th share, namely 10 cents, in the suit schedule property. He further contended that the 2nd defendant had subsequently released his half share in his favour. It was also his case 18/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA Nos.41 and 42 of 2003 that he had redeemed all prior mortgages subsisting in respect of the said 1/6th share in the specific plot. This contention was not disputed by the plaintiffs. 27.Since the 2nd defendant remained absent, the trial Court, while answering Issue No.8 relating to the entitlement of the parties, held that in view of the admission made by the plaintiffs regarding the entitlement of defendants 1 and 2, coupled with the release made by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 1st defendant, the 1st defendant was entitled to the entire 1/6th share in the suit property. The trial Court also accepted Ex.B7, the mortgage deed and Ex.B8, the release deed. The plaintiffs preferred an appeal against the said judgment, which came to be dismissed. 28.In the final decree proceedings in I.A. No.72 of 1983 in OS No. 341 of 1972, the plaintiff did not seriously disputed the allotment of shares, but only prayed that his share should be allotted on the roadside portion, taking into consideration the location of his predecessor’s graveyard situated on the southern and western side. The 1st defendant Elias prayed for allotment of his 1/6th share in Survey No.2032, where his 19/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA Nos.41 and 42 of 2003 residential house was situated. The 3rd respondent also sought allotment considering his residence and the graveyard of his ancestors. 29.Based on the above, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed to survey the property and to allot the shares in accordance with the preliminary decree. The Commissioner filed Ex.C5 report and Ex.C7 plan in respect of item No.1 and Ex.C6 report and plan in respect of item No.2. Thereafter, the Commissioner was directed to inspect item No.1 with reference to Survey No.2032 alone and effect allotment to the 2nd defendant and defendants 16 and 17 as per the second preliminary decree. Accordingly, the property was re-surveyed and reports and sketches were filed under Exs.C8 and C9. 30.The same was objected to by the 16th defendant, namely the wife of the 1st plaintiff, contending that the 1st plaintiff was not allotted roadside property and also raised objections regarding the road portions allotted in favour of defendants 1, 3, and 5. Upon consideration of the Commissioner’s report and the objections raised, the trial Court allotted ‘A’ plot measuring 12.705 cents to the 1st plaintiff, 750 sq. links each to 20/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA Nos.41 and 42 of 2003 the 2nd plaintiff in A1 plot and A2 plot, and 1 cent in Plot No.2 to the 3rd plaintiff. The trial Court also allotted 9.470 cents to the 1st defendant (whose legal heirs are defendants 18 to 24), 9.470 cents to the 3rd defendant, 3 cents to defendants 5 to 10, 8.002 cents to the 16th defendant, and 1 cent to the 17th defendant. 31.The 1st plaintiff objected that he was not allotted land on the roadside. The trial Court, however, found that he had been allotted road access on the south-western side of his property. Further, considering the plaintiff’s request that his share be allotted adjacent to the ancestral graveyard, the same was taken into account and allotted accordingly. Simultaneously, the 16th defendant was allotted 42 links of road access on the eastern side. 32.The present objection raised by the appellants against the allotment made in favour of the 1st defendant cannot be sustained, as the issue had already attained finality in the preliminary decree, wherein it was held that the 2nd defendant had released his rights in favour of the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant neither appeared nor objected to the said 21/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA Nos.41 and 42 of 2003 finding. Even in the final decree proceedings, the properties were allotted to the legal heirs of the 1st defendant, and the 2nd defendant have not chose to challenge the same. Therefore, the 1st plaintiff has no locus standi to question the allotment. 33.It is true that in the operative portion of the preliminary decree, defendants 1 and 2 were jointly shown as entitled to 1/6th share. However, there has been no factual or legal development affecting the entitlement of the plaintiffs so as to disturb the findings already recorded. 34.The trial Court as well as the first appellate Court, taking into consideration the buildings standing in the property, improvements made, and the long enjoyment by the parties, allotted portions in an equitable manner, ensuring adjacency and convenient enjoyment. While passing the final decree, it is the duty of the Court to take into consideration factors such as access, pathway, irrigation facilities, and practical utilisation of the lands. It may not be possible in every case to allot road frontage to all sharers. Equity and convenience must guide the Court. 22/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA Nos.41 and 42 of 2003 35.If the plaintiff’s request for eastern side road frontage is accepted, it would disturb the long possession and enjoyment of the other sharers. Hence, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the final decree passed by the trial Court and confirmed by the first appellate Court. 36.Insofar as S.A No.42 of 2003 arising out of A.S. No.159 of 1996 is concerned, the plaintiffs claimed title under Ex.A1 said to have been executed by Vedanayagam. However, this issue has already been conclusively decided in O.S No.341 of 1972, wherein the 1st plaintiff admitted that defendants 1 and 2 were entitled to 1/6th share. 37.In the present suit, the plaintiffs contended that Vedanayagam had mortgaged the property in favour of one Devasahayam and that the same was subsequently conveyed. However, the trial Court accepted the defendant’s case that Rosi had two sons, namely Elias and Vedanayagam, and that Vedanayagam had released his share in favour of Elias. Elias had redeemed the mortgage and had been in possession and enjoyment for over 30 years. 23/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA Nos.41 and 42 of 2003 38.Though the plaintiff contended that the mortgage was usufructuary in nature, it is settled law that in an usufructuary mortgage, ownership remains with the mortgagor, while possession remains with the mortgagee. It is the bounden duty of the mortgagee to established that the title and ownership over the property continue to visit with him and that the mortgage has not acquired in independent or absolute title thereto. In the absence of any satisfactory proof of existing title and in view of the long, open, continuous, and hostile possession of the mortgagee, the claim of the plaintiff through mortgagor for redemption cannot be sustained. Further, Vedanayagam, alleged mortgagor was a party served with notice, neither contested the earlier proceedings nor disputed the release in favour of Elias. No appeal was filed challenging the preliminary decree. 39.The trial Court also found that the defendants’ possession had been accepted by the 1st plaintiff. The defendants produced Chitta, Patta, tax receipts, and other documents to establish their long, continuous possession. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, failed to prove that the document relied on by the defendants was an assignment and not a release deed. This issue had already been concluded in O.S. No.341 of 1972 and therefore operated as res judicata. 24/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA Nos.41 and 42 of 2003 40.To establish an usufructuary mortgage, the plaintiff ought to have proved that possession was delivered to the mortgagee, that the mortgagee was entitled to enjoy the rents and profits, that such profits were to be appropriated towards interest or principal, and that there existed a subsisting right of redemption. Further, the plaintiff should have established that title remained with him by producing revenue records and tax receipts. No such evidence was produced. 41.The plaintiff also claimed protection under the Tamil Nadu Debt Relief enactments on the ground that he and his predecessor were agriculturists. However, evidence disclosed that Vedanayagam was a contractor and the plaintiff himself was a Government servant. Hence, they are not entitled to such statutory protection. 42.The defendants also challenged the sale deed allegedly executed by Vedanayagam as fraudulent, particularly since it was not registered in the jurisdiction where the property was situated. The plaintiffs failed to adduce evidence proving its due execution. 25/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA Nos.41 and 42 of 2003 43.In view of the above, this Court finds that the trial Court, upon proper appreciation of pleadings and evidence, rightly decreed the suit, and the same was correctly confirmed by the first appellate Court. This Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the judgments and decrees of the Courts below. Accordingly, the Second Appeals are devoid of merits and stand dismissed. 44.In the result, both Second Appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. 02.07.2026 Index : Yes Internet : Yes NCC : Yes / No er 26/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA Nos.41 and 42 of 2003 To 1.The II Additional Sub Court, Tirunelveli. 2.The District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli. Copy to 1.The Section Officer, ER/VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 27/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis SA Nos.41 and 42 of 2003 R.POORNIMA, J. er Pre-Delivery Common Judgment in SA Nos.41 and 42 of 2003 02/07/2026 28/28 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis