BALASUBRAMANIAN Vs. RAMAIAH THONDAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Legal Representatives of the deceased defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 22.03.2001 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Second Appeal No. 45 of 1985 allowing the same filed by the respondent-herein have preferred the above appeal.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondent herein/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of his title and for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property or in the alternative for possession of the suit property. According to the plaintiff, the suit property belonged absolutely to Ramasamy Konar and his daughter Nachammai. The patta was in their names and they were in enjoyment of the same. The plaintiff purchased the suit property from the said Ramasami Konar and his daughter for Rs.12,300/- on 11.09.1978. From the date of purchase, the plaintiff was in possession. The defendants husband purchased some of the property from the said Ramasami Konar. Since the defendant with their followers caused disturbance to the plaintiff in the matter of enjoyment of the suit property, the plaintiff filed the suit.

(3.) The case of the defendant as stated in the written statement was that the settlement patta had been wrongly issued for the suit lands to Ramasami Konar and Nachammai without proper enquiry. The grant of patta in favour of them cannot confer any title to the suit property as the same is not a document of title. The plaintiff is debarred in claiming title to the suit property by virtue of the patta in favour his vendors. The sale in favour of the plaintiff was brought about by fraud, misrepresentation and by undue influence. In any event, Ramasami Konar and his daughter had no right and title to the suit property. When the defendants husband Chelliah Pillai came to know about the wrong issuance of patta for the suit property in favour of Ramasami Konar and his daughter, he filed an application before the settlement authorities for transfer of patta for the property in his favour. The said Ramasami Konar appeared before the Assistant Settlement Officer and conceded that he and his daughter Nachammai had no title or possession of the suit property and the patta for the suit property was wrongly granted to him. He consented for the transfer of registry for the suit property. The defendant and her predecessors in title have and had been in possession of the suit properties for more than the statutory period adversely openly and uninterruptedly. The defendant and their children have acquired title to the suit properties by adverse possession. The village karnam is the brother of the plaintiff. Hence with the assistance of his brother, the plaintiff had brought the sale deed and filed the suit. He denied the claim of the plaintiff with regard to possession.