Quick Summary: The Madras High Court dismissed Kaliyappan's appeal, confirming the previous decisions that favored Palanisamy's representatives in a property dispute case. The court found no reason to change the earlier rulings.
This case is about a piece of land in Pudukalaiyanour Village, Sathyamangalam Taluk. Kaliyappan and his family said they owned it based on a settlement paper from 1987. After moving to Gopichettipalayam for work, Kaliyappan claimed that his sister, the second person being accused, entered the property without permission after their mother died in 2008.
The conflict got worse when Kaliyappan said his sister took the original settlement paper and wouldn't leave the property. Palanisamy's representatives, however, said they had been living there for over 50 years and claimed the land belonged to the government.
"The plaintiff had received money from her ten years earlier and handed over the documents." - Excerpt from the second defendant's police complaint.
Kaliyappan had trouble because he didn't have the original settlement paper. He said his sister took it and showed a certified copy as proof. The court accepted this copy as evidence based on the rules of the Indian Evidence Act.
Palanisamy's representatives said they had lived there long enough to own the property, a concept known as adverse possession. But their mixed-up claims made their case weaker.
On November 24, 2025, Justice Dr. A.D. Maria Clete decided that Palanisamy's representatives couldn't prove they owned the property by living there for a long time. The court found no mistake in the previous decisions and dismissed the appeal.
"The evidence on record discloses that the dispute between the parties arose only after the demise of their mother in the year 2008."
The court's dismissal of the appeal means Kaliyappan doesn't have legal support for his claim. This decision highlights how important it is to have consistent claims and proper paperwork in property disputes.
