VELUCHAMI KOUNDER S/O SUBBAYYA KOUNDER Vs. RAVIKUMARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent instituted the suit for recovery of possession of the plaint schedule immovable property. The first appellant was the first defendant and the predecessor of the other appellants the second defendant. The trial court found that the respondent failed to prove his title to the property and accordingly, it dismissed the suit. In the appeal filed by the respondent the learned District Judge reversed the decree. This is challenged in this Second Appeal.

(2.) The plaint schedule property has an extent of 1 Acre 22 cents (49 Ares 40 Sq.m) , which is comprised in resurvey No.515/6 of Valiyavallampathy village. In the plaint schedule its earlier survey number is shown as 568. The respondent alleged that it was part of the several properties which belonged to his father, Kambayi, who obtained a purchase certificate from the Land Tribunal in 1981 and at a partition that took place in his family in 1984, the plaint schedule property was not allotted to anyone and it remained in the ownership of Kambayi, in 2004 Kambayi sold it to the respondent; on 23.3.2004 the first appellant trespassed into it and reduced it into his possession and committed mischief in it, later, he executed a sale deed in favour of the predecessor of appellants 2 to 4. The respondent further alleged that in O.S.No.179 of 2004 filed by him against the first appellant under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act for recovery of possession the latter denied the respondent's title to the property. So the respondent filed the present suit for recovery of possession on the strength of his title. The first appellant and the predecessor of respondents 2 to 4 filed separate written statements, in which they denied that the father of the respondent had title to the property and the respondent got title to the property from his father. They contended that the plaint schedule property was in the possession and enjoyment of one Veluchami Kounder under two sale deeds bearing No.59 of 1958 and 1236 of 1960 and he put the first appellant in possession of the property in 1973 and executed a sale deed in his favour in 2000, the first appellant sold the property to the predecessor of appellants 2 to 4 in 2004. They prayed for dismissal of the suit with compensatory costs.

(3.) Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent.