MUNUSAMY NAIDU Vs. D KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent herein/Plaintiff has filed the suit in OS.No.616/1987 for declaration of the title of the plaintiff to the suit property and for permanent injunction and in the alternative vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.

(2.) THE case of the Plaintiff as set out in the plaint is as follows:- THE suit property originally belonged to the joint family of one Dasappa Naidu, Venkatrama Naidu and one Govindappa Naidu. THEy were in possession and enjoyment of 84 cents of land in S.No.21/1 of Kottipalli. After the partition between the brothers, namely, Venkatarama Naidu, Dasappa Naidu and Govindappa Naidu, each of them were enjoying their share of 28 cents. Dasappa Naidu died leaving behind the plaintiff, Kannampalli Naidu and Ammathayappa Naidu as his legal heirs. Venkatrama Naidu died leaving behind Muniyappa Naidu. THE plaintiff and his two brothers were in possession and enjoyment of their father's share of 28 cents. Likewise, Muniyappa Naidu was also in possession and enjoyment of his share through his father Venkatrama Naidu. Ammathayappa Naidu and Kanampalli Naidu sold their shares to the plaintiff. Muniyappa Naidu sold 14 cents to the plaintiff. THErefore, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of an extent of 42 cents in S.No.21/2. Muniyappa Naidu also sold 14 cents to Govindappa Naidu. THE plaintiff and the said Govindappa Naidu are only in possession and enjoyment of the entire extent of 84 cents in S.No.21/2. THEy are the absolute owners of the property. THE plaintiff entrusted the management of the property to the Govindappa Naidu and visited the property very often. Govindappa Naidu was paying the kist on behalf of the plaintiff. THE defendant is the adjacent land owner on the southern side. THE defendant was insisting the plaintiff and his brothers and Govindappa Naidu to sell the suit property to him. But, the plaintiff refused to sell the property. THErefore, there was an enmity between the plaintiff and the defendant. THEreafter, the defendant started giving trouble and tried to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. THE defendant who has no right or title in the suit property tried to trespass into the suit property on 15.11.1987 which was prevented by the plaintiff. THE defendant has proclaimed that he will dispossess the plaintiff. In such circumstances, the suit has been filed for declaration and permanent injunction.

(3.) BEFORE the Trial Court, on the side of the Plaintiff, Ex.A1 to A10 were marked and the Plaintiff examined himself as PW.1. On behalf of the Defendant, Ex.B1 to B17 were marked and Dws.1 to 3 were examined. The report and the plan filed by the Advocate Commissioner were marked as Ex.C1 and C2.