SEVIGOUNDER Vs. RAMASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2002 on the file if II Additional Subordinate Judge, Villupuram, in confirming the judgment and decree dated 05.02.2001 made in O.S. No.324 of 1996 on the file of II Additional District Munsif, Ulundurpet.

(2.) THE averments in the Plaint are as follows:(i) THE suit property originally belonged to one Muttiah Gounder. He is having two sons, by name, Manu Gounder and Ramaswamy, the first defendant. On 26.12.1963, they divided the property in pursuance of a registered partition deed. In the above said partition, the suit property and other properties were allotted to the share of Manu Gounder. He died intestate leaving behind Velayutha Gounder as his only son. After his death, Velayutha Gounder was in possession and enjoyment of the same. On 19.05.1987, he alienated the property in favour of the plaintiff on behalf of himself and his minor son Karunanidhi. From the date of purchase, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the same by way of mutation of revenue records and by paying kist for the patta No.105. THE chitta and adangal also stands in the name of the plaintiff. THE plaintiff and his predecessor -in -title were in possession and enjoyment of the same openly, continuously, without any interruption for more than a statutory period. So, the plaintiff prescribed title by adverse possession.(ii) THE defendants are having no right over the property. THE defendants are having property adjacent to the suit property. So, they attempted to interfere with the plaintiff -s possession, which was prevented. Since, at any time they may interfere with the possession, the plaintiff has come forward with the Suit for declaration of title and injunction and he prayed for a decree.

(3.) AT the time of admission of the Second Appeal, the following substantial questions of law were framed for consideration:a. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Lower Appellate Court was right in holding that the appellant has not established his right and enjoyment of the suit schedule property is correct in law when it was admitted by the respondents in their evidence?b. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Lower Appellate Court was right in holding that the Suit is bad for non -joinder of necessary parties?