RAMAKKA,W/O PERIYASAMY Vs. SAHADEVAN (DEAD)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The Appellant herein has preferred the suit in O.S.No.189 of 2001 before the District Munsif Court, Pallipattu, for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property, which is morefully described in the schedule as below:-

(2.) According to the Appellant, the said suit property was allotted to her under DKT Patta dated 30.09.1989 issued by Tashildar, Pallipattu. She had taken possession of the same and enjoying by putting up hut. Due to heavy rain, 7 years ago, the mud wall of the thatched hut collapsed. However, she is regularly paying the kist for the property. While so, the respondents/defendants herein, without any right, attempted to trespass into the suit property and has removed 'Velikathan' tree standing in the property. Hence, suit for declaration of right, title and interest to the suit schedule property and for permanent injunction.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants/respondents herein on the premise that the plaintiff was not allotted the suit property under the DKT Patta. She did not put up any structure in the said property and it never collapsed later, as averred in the plaint. The alleged payment of Kist not in respect of the suit property. The property mentioned in the suit schedule is an ancestral property of the 1st defendant/Sagadevan. He and his family is in possession and enjoying of the suit property along with other property lying on the west, for more than 100 years. In the year 1989, the Tashildar, Pallipattu, had issued D.K.T Patta in the name of Tmt.Jayamma wife of Sagadevan. The property falls in S.No.28/9, Plot No.54. Later, under the Natham patta scheme, the Tashildar has issued patta No.125 in the name of the 1st defendant/Sagadevan, for an extent of 98 sq.mts, in S.No.337/5 (new), old S.No.28/9. The suit property is part of his house site. In the year 1997, Sagadevan and his brother had sold the property to the 5th defendant/Ravichandran, for a sale consideration of Rs.9,120/- since then, the 5th defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. While so, there is no necessity for the respondent to trespass into the suit property since, it is their absolute property.