KASTURI RENGAN Vs. KAAYAMBU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved over the concurrent finding of the Courts below, decreeing the suit for declaration and permanent injunction, the present Second Appeal came to be filed.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per their ranking before the Trial Court.

(3.) The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as follows: The suit property originally belonged to Hariyal Field Labourers Co-operative Society. Item No.1 of the suit property was allotted in favour of the father of the plaintiff one Murugan, S/o.Koothan, who was a member in the Society. Similarly, Item Nos. 2 and 3 of the suit property were allotted in favour of the plaintiff. The Society also executed a deed of conveyance in favour of the respective parties. The plaintiff was originally born in Ceylon, when his father was working there as Estate Labourer. The plaintiff and his father returned to India in and around 1933 and they were in India upto 1940. Only at that time, assignment was given to the plaintiff and his father. After staying here for sometime, the plaintiff and his father went to Ceylon for eking out their livelihood. In Ceylon itself, the father of the plaintiff died leaving behind his two sons, namely the plaintiff and one Sannasi. During the absence of the plaintiff and his father, the suit property was looking after by his paternal uncle one Periannan till his life time and after him, by one Thangavelu, S/o.Appavoo. During the absence of the plaintiff and his father, one Rakkappan @ Rajappa, S/o.Sundaram and Abimanyu, S/o.Arjunan, who are close relatives of the plaintiff, have created a document in favour of the defendants 1 and 2 as if they have sold the suit properties. The said Rakkappan @ Rajappa and Abimanyu, have no right whatsoever to deal with the property. The plaintiff was working as Estate Labourer in Ceylon till 1983 and subsequently, due to ethnic problem in Ceylon, the plaintiff could not continue his living in Ceylon. Hence, he and his family members returned to India in the month of November, 1983. Only on coming to India, he came to know that the documents were created in favour of the defendants 1 and 2. Immediately, he applied encumbrance certificate and came to know that Rakkappan @ Rajappa and Abimanyu have sold the suit property and some other properties to the first defendant, vide a registered sale deed dated 24.01.1971. The first defendant, in turn, sold some of the suit properties to the second defendant on 13.09.1972. Those documents did not convey any title to the defendants. In fact, even after the dates of document, revenue patta still stands in the name of the plaintiff. Even, during re-survey, patta has been granted to the plaintiff. Possession was all along with the plaintiff. In his absence, one Thangavelu was looking after the property. Hence, the suit for declaration and injunction.