Madras High Court

Madras HC: Kanniammal's Ownership of Pudur Village Land Upheld

Updated
Dec 27, 2025 10:54 PM
madras-hc-kanniammals-ownership-of-pudur-village-land-upheld

Overview of the Case

On December 5, 2025, the High Court of Madras, under Judge Dr. A.D. Maria Clete, gave a decision in a land dispute case involving Shanmuga Naicker (who has passed away) and Kanniammal. The main issue was about who owned a piece of land in Pudur Village, Madurantakkam Taluk, Kanchipuram District.

The Dispute Begins

The case started when Kanniammal went to court to be officially recognized as the owner and to prevent others from claiming her 0.28 cents of land in Survey No. 356/1C. She said she bought the land through a registered sale document on July 6, 1968, from Munusamy Naicker. However, the other side, led by Shanmuga Naicker and his family, argued that they owned the entire 1.11 acres of land because they inherited it from Duraisamy Naicker.

"The 1st plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and for permanent injunction in respect of the land measuring 0.28 cents."

Court's Initial Decision

The District Munsif Court in Madurantakkam initially decided in favor of Kanniammal, confirming her ownership based on her sale document and other evidence. The defendants, however, thought this decision was wrong and challenged it.

Appeal and Confirmation

The challenge was heard by the Subordinate Judge at Madurantakkam, who agreed with the initial decision. The court found problems with the defendants' claims, especially since they couldn't show a valid document to prove they owned the land.

"The First Appellate Court confirmed the decree."

Final Judgment by High Court

On December 5, 2025, the High Court rejected the second challenge filed by Shanmuga Naicker's heirs. The court noted that the defendants' use of farming records was not enough to prove ownership without a proper ownership document.

"The appeal merely seeks reappreciation of evidence, which is impermissible in a Second Appeal."

Summary of the Verdict

The High Court sided with Kanniammal, confirming her as the rightful owner of the land due to her having the correct legal documents, while the other side could not provide any valid proof of ownership.