M.SIVASHANMUGAM Vs. KIRUTHIGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in O.S.No.299 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli, having suffered a decree for declaration and permanent injunction upon its affirmation by the lower appellate Court in A.S.No.146 of 2012, have come up with this second appeal.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to one Valan Kudumban vide sale deeds dated 25.11.1959 and 09.12.1959. The said Valan Kudumban died leaving behind four sons, namely, Subbiah, Madan, Sivanu and Karumban. According to the plaintiff, at a partition between four sons of Valan Kudumban the property measuring about 14 cents in Survey No.2656/2 was divided into four equal shares of 3.5 cents, each. Eastern most land of 3.5 cents was allotted to the eldest son , namely, Subbiah and other sons were allotted the land situated on the further west.

(3.) It is the further claim of the plaintiff that Madan sold his 3.5 cents to Sivanu on 14.11.1960. Sivanu had two wives, namely, Avudaiyammal and Rajammal. Through Avudaiyammal, Sivanu had three sons, by name, Perumal, Thadiyakkaran and Karuppaiah. Through the second wife, Rajammal, Sivanu had one son by name, Subbiah. The heirs of Sivanu had entered into a registered partition deed on 23.05.1980, under which the property purchased by Sivanu from Madan measuring about 3.5 cents was allotted to Karuppaiah, the father of the plaintiff. Thereafter, under sale deed dated 17.07.1997, Karuppaiah sold the said 3.5 cents to the plaintiff. Though the said sale deed recites the total extent conveyed as 14 cents, subsequently, the same was rectified restricting it to 3.5 cents. Two rectification documents were executed by Karuppaiah, namely 2/10 S.A.(MD) No.126 of 2015 father of the plaintiff under Exs.A8 and A11, dated 07.07.2011 and 09.06.2009, respectively. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, she is entitled to the suit property measuring about 3.5 cents, which land was allotted to Madan in the partition that took place and sold by him to Sivanu under sale deed dated 14.11.1960. Contending that the defendants, who are the heirs of Madan attempted to deny her title and interfere with her possession, the plaintiff had come up with the above suit