MARI KOUNDER Vs. MOHANRAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in the suit is the appellant before this Court. Having lost the suit before the Courts below, the present second appeal is filed. The suit laid by the plaintiff / respondent for declaration of title and for consequential injunction restraining the defendant / appellant and his agents from disturbing the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is that, the suit schedule property consisting of three items originally belonged to one Natesa Mudaliar. In the year 1966, the same was purchased by the grand mother of the plaintiff Saraswati Ammal, vide sale deed dated 25.10.1966. Subsequently, during re-survey, the suit schedule properties; Item No.1 was re-numbered as R.S.No.110/13; Item No.2 was renumbered as R.S.No.110/12 and Item No.3 was re-numbered as R.S.No.110/11. Again, the suit schedule properties; Item Nos.1 to 3 were sub-divided as 596/18; 596/19 and 596/12 respectively.

(3.) Out of three cents of land in S.No.314/14, in one cent of land, a house was constructed by Saraswati Ammal and the same was under her enjoyment. The plaintiff on 15.02.2006, settled this property along with other properties to her son Mohanraj. In the said settlement deed, instead of giving the total extent of the land, erroneously linear measurement of the house alone was mentioned. When this came to the notice, a rectification deed was registered on 11.06.2006. The constructed house and the garden portion are shown in Item No.3 of the suit schedule property.