RAVINDRAN Vs. RAMAMOORTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is filed by the plaintiff in O.S.No.474 of 2004 on the file of 2nd Additional District Munsif, Virudhachalam. The suit filed for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of property in S.No.92/14 measuring 0.17.5 H (0.44 cents) in patta No.453 at Veppur Village, Virudhachalam Taluk.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property originally belong to the father of Ramasamy, Muthu Goundar and Kona Goundar. The plaintiff is descendent of Kona Goundar. 1st defendant is descendent of Ramasamy Gounder and Muthu Goundar died issueless. By way of oral partition, held 50 years ago, the suit property was allotted to Kona Goundar branch. The father of the plaintiff dealt the said suit property by creating bockiam with one Arumugam for Rs.1,200/- on 23.05.1966. In the said bockiam Kannusamy, who is the father of the defendants 1 and 2 had signed as attestor. Later, when the bockiam was discharged on 05.05.1972, the said Kannusamy has attested the discharge also. Thus, the exclusive possession and enjoyment of the suit property with the plaintiff knowledge being explicitly seen from the endorsement by the father of the defendants 1 and 2. While so, the defendants 1 and 2 are trying to include their name in the patta of the suit property. The petition to the Tahsildar, Virudhachalam, to delete the name in the patta was dismissed on 14.12.2201. The Appeal to Revenue Divisional Officer, Virudhachalam is pending. Stay order has been granted by the Revenue Divisional Officer on 25.09.2003 till the disposal of the appeal. However, taking advantage of the new patta issued in the name of the defendants, they have sold 0.03 H of the land to the 3rd defendant. In view of the alienation, the Settlement Tahsildar, Land Acquisition has caused notice for enquiry. The defendants 1 and 3 are trying to disturb the peaceful possession and cultivation of the suit property by the plaintiff. Hence, the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

(3.) Relying upon revenue tax receipts, A-Register, Chitta and Adangal, as proof for possession and relying upon the oral partition, as proof for title the contested the suit. The suit defended by the respondent Nos.1 to 3 questioning the validity of the alleged oral partition. The bockiam created on 23.05.1966 in favour of Arumugam and subsequent discharge of the Bockiam on 05.05.1992 were denied. The contention of the plaintiff that the entire suit property was devolved upon him based on the oral partition was denied by the defendant and contrarily, they contended that the suit property original belong to Kona Goundar, Ramasamy Goundar and Muthu Goundar. Muthu Goundar had no male issues. Therefore, Ramasamy Goundar and Kona Goundar divided the property among themselves. The joint patta issued by the Government and based on the oral partition, they both were dealing the property independently and have created several alienation and encumbrances. Specifically on 18.01.1965, Kannusamy Goundar created a mortgage in favour of Gnanambal wife of Muthu Pillai. Periyasamy Goundar and Kannusamy Goundar had created mortgage in favour of multi purpose and credit society. Suppressing all these facts, the suit has been laid. The defendants 1 and 2 are son of Kannusamy Goundar had inherited the property as per partition and enjoying it peacefully for more than 12 years. Based on the said title, they alienated 0.02. H to the 3rd defendant Iyyasamy Goundar. The property has been sub-divided and patta has been given to the respective parties. For suppressing all these facts and also for non-impleading other brothers, the suit is bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties and liable to be dismissed. When 200 sq.mts of land was acquired by the 4th defendant for expansion of National Highways, the suit for injunction restraining the acquisition is not maintainable.