SETHURAMAN AND ORS. Vs. ARULSAMY AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants, in a suit for declaration of title and for consequential decree of injunction, who having succeeded before the trial Court but, suffered a reversal before the first Appellate Court, have preferred this appeal. Parties would be referred to by their rank before the trial Court.

(2.) The short sketch of the dispute alongside the evidentiary materials, which it may be stated are substantially admitted, is now provided. A. Plaintiff's case -? The plaintiff's case is that a certain Gopal Padayachi owned a piece of land measuring 92 cents in Sy.No:227/4B. Out of this, under Ext.A-2 sale deed dated 30-03-1930, he sold 16 cents to his brother Thiruvengada Padayachi. On 03-07-1960, there was a partition among the children of Thiruvengada Padayachi, in which the suit property was allotted to the share of a certain Ramalinga Padayachi, one of the sons of Thiruvengada Padayachi. It may be stated that in the partition deed, the extent which Ramalingam was stated to have obtained is mentioned as 15 cents. -? Long thereafter, on 18.10.1995 under Ext.A.1 Ramalingam had sold 16 cents to the plaintiff. When he purchased the suit property, the plaintiff verified the revenue records and ascertained the title of the vendor. Since the purchase of the property, the revenue records have been mutated, and the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and has been paying all taxes and rates payable on the property. -? Alleging that the defendants posed certain threat to his title and possession, plaintiff had laid the suit for declaration of his title over the property he had purchased under Ext.A.1 and for an ancillary relief of prohibitory injunction.

(3.) The second defendant had filed a separate written statement but has substantially adopted the written statement of his father/first defendant.