THIRUCHITRAMBALAM(DIED) Vs. RAJANGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second appeal has now been pursued by the legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff in the suit filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The trial Court found in favour of the plaintiff. In appeal, the first appellate Court held against the plaintiff and reversed the finding of the trial Court.

(2.) The case of Thiruchitrambalam the plaintiff is that, the suit property was purchased by him on 26/05/1983 from one Ganapathy who is the first defendant in the suit. In the suit property, he is keeping his cattle and enjoying it peacefully. The first defendant, after alienating the suit property for valuable consideration to the plaintiff, now along with other defendants trying to disturb the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment. On 01/02/1990, the defendants and their henchmen came to the suit property, threatened and abused the wife and son of the plaintiff in filthy language. Police has registered a case against defendants 3 and 4 and also against the wife and son of the plaintiff under Section 160 IPC for rioting. The plaintiff issued lawyer notice to the defendants calling upon them not to disturb his peaceful possession of the suit property. Apprehending disturbance from the defendants, initially the plaintiff filed suit for bare injunction, later amended his prayer for declaration of title and consequential injunction.

(3.) The third defendant contested the suit, that the alleged sale of the suit property by the first defendant to the plaintiff is not true. The suit property belongs to the third defendant Rajagam @ Manjini. He purchased the suit property from one Visalakshi Ammal under the sale deed dated 21/08/1969. Since then he is in enjoyment of the property. In the suit property, his brother Srinivasan @ Narayanasamy was permitted to put up construction and he occupied as permissive occupier. When Srinivasan @ Narayanasamy vacated the property, he sold the superstructure on it to this defendant through a registered sale deed dated 24/04/1982. The suit property has never been with the plaintiff or with the other defendants in the suit. As the absolute owner of the property, he has sold a portion of the property to one Kannan. The criminal case referred in the plaint is due to petty quarrel between the plaintiff and the first defendant family members. The said criminal case has no relevancy to the title suit under consideration.