JAYARAMAN Vs. VIDHYASAGARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These second appeals are preferred as against the common judgment and decree passed in A.S.No. 19 and 20 of 2004 dated 29.07.2004 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court - III), Thindivanam confirmed the judgment and decree passed in O.S.Nos. 365 of 1997 and 503 of 1997 dated 11.10.2002 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gingee.

(2.) The Appellants in both the appeals preferred appeals in A.S.Nos.70 and 71 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tindivanam as against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.Nos. 365 of 1997 and 503 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gingee. In O.S.No.365 of 1997, the appellants are plaintiffs and the respondent is the defendant. In O.S.No.503 of 1997, the respondent is the plaintiff and appellants are the defendants. In both the suits, the learned District Munsif, Gingee passed common judgment and decree there by dismissing the suit filed by the appellants and allowed the suit filed by the respondent. As against the common judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.365 of 1997 and O.S.No.503 of 1997, the appellants preferred an appeal suits in A.S.Nos. 70 and 71 of 2002 before the first Appellate Court. The first Appellate Court dismissed both the appeals by the common judgment and decree dated 29.07.2004.

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.365 of 1997 in brief is that one Rangasamy Gounder, who is the father of the plaintiff and one Venkatachala Gounder are brothers. The said suit property along with other properties were joint family properties of them. After their death, the plaintiffs and their brother Ramachandra Gounder were in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The brother of his father had no issues and one Senthamarai Ammal was his wife. According to their family arrangements, land measuring 2.24 cents out of 3.04 acres comprised in Survey No.160/5, the extent of land measuring 0.76 cents comprised in Survey No.160/4 and the land at measuring 0.50 cents out of 3.33 acres comprised in Survey No.161/1 were allotted to the said Senthamarai Ammal. She was given only the enjoyment right over the said property. Having been she was settled the entire property in favour of her younger brother one Gopala Gounder in the year 1961, he filed a suit against the first plaintiff in O.S.No.215 of 1978 and the same was dismissed as against which he preferred an appeal suit in A.S.No.84 of 1980 and the same was also dismissed. Both the Courts below found that the settlement deed executed by Senthamarai Ammal in favour of the said Gopala Gounder is not valid and he had no right over the property. Thereafter, she died issue less and the properties devolved on the plaintiffs and their brother. The second plaintiff sold his share to the wife of the first plaintiff and the another brother Ramachandra Gounder also sold his share to some other person. Thus, the first plaintiff became absolute owner of the suit schedule property. Accepting the same, the second plaintiff has sought for relief in this suit that the Gopala Gounder's son is claiming false title to have purchased the suit properties from Senthamarai Ammal in the year 1981. Therefore, the purchase of the suit property by the defendant is not valid one, since it is under the possession and enjoyment of the first plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction as against the defendant.