N MEERA MOHAIDEEN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant against the judgment and decree passed by the Court below, dismissing the suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunctions.

(2.) For better appreciation and understanding, the parties are referred to as per their in rank in the suit.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property is a house site comprised in Survey No.502/10 and he has purchased the same from one Palaniyappa Asari through his Power Agent under registered sale deed 21.08.1995 (Ex.A1). A vast extent of land ie., 110 Kurukkams of land, including the suit land, was originally purchased by Thiyagarajan Chettiar, Meiyappa Chettiar and Alagappa Chettiar under a registered sale deed dated 10.08.1908 (Ex.A6) from Kottaiyur Nadars and they formed a Village called Jeyangondapuram in the said land by making house sites, streets, Oorani, temple, agraharam, etc. From the said three Chettiars, one Somasundaram Chettiar had purchased 3/16 share in 110 Kurukkams of land under a registered sale deed dated 16.11.1910 (Ex.A5) and kept as house sites, in which the suit property is a part of house site. Thereafter, one Alamelu Aachi purchased the suit property from the son of Somasundaram Chettiar by name Annamalai Chettiar under registered sale deed dated 06.07.1962 (Ex.A4). At the time of purchase by Alamelu Aachi, there was a building in dilapidated condition and hence, the suit property was registered as vacant site. Subsequently, one Chidambaram purchased the suit property from the said Alamelu Aachi under a registered sale deed dated 10.02.1969 (Ex.A3). Thereafter, the immediate predecessor in title of the plaintiff by name Palaniyappa Asari purchased the property through his Power Agent by a registered sale deed dated 18.11.1986 (Ex.A2). The suit schedule property is a natham house site. At the time of purchase of the plaintiff, there was a dilapidated building and a small thatched roof in the suit property. The plaintiff rented out the said thatched roof to one Ramasamy. In the year 1998, the plaintiff constructed a building as N.M.R. Complex consisting of 10 shops in the suit property and let out the shops for rent. The plaintiff had been paying land tax before the construction and building tax after the construction to the Karaikudi Municipality. The plaintiff has mortgaged the property in favour of Syndicate Bank and borrowed a sum of Rs.4.5 lakhs in the year 2005. Thus, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property without any interruption.