V PANDIAN Vs. K P SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants 1 to 3 in O.S.No.193 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Arani have preferred the second appeal, aggrieved against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Arani, Thiruvannamalai District, dated 13.11.1999 in A.S.No.50 of 1997 allowing the appeal partly and setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 4.4.1997.

(2.) THE case in brief is as follows: THE plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and for recovery of possession of the property as well as mesne profits. D-4 and one Velu Gounder are the sons of Ramasamy Gounder and they were members of Hindu undivided family. Ramasamy Gounder died long back. Velu Gounder and D-4 orally divided the property some 30 years back and the suit property fell to the share of D-4. Velu Gounder also died some 10 years back. D-4 had no male issues and therefore, he was staying in the house of his father-in-law. D-1 to D-3 are the children of Velu Gounder. D-4 had entrusted D-1 to D-3 to look after the agricultural work relating to his lands. D-4 used to come to the village often and he was also staying in the house bearing door No.10. D-4 used to give money for meeting agricultural expenses as well as payment of kist, etc. He used to be present even at the time of harvest. For the last 30 years D-4 had been enjoying the property through D-1 to D-3 and he had also perfected the title by adverse possession. Patta was also granted in the name of D-4. He wanted to perform the marriage of his daughter and to meet the marriage expenses as well as family expenses, he wanted to dispose the property. D-4 offered the property for sale to D-1 to D-3. But, as they were not willing, D-4 subsequently sold the property in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.25,500 under a registered document dated 16.5.1995. D-1 sent a notice on 5.6.1995 containing false allegations. D-1 to D-3 had also filed separate suit in O.S.No.555 of 1995 with reference to the same property against the plaintiff and others. D-1 to D-3 have no right to remain in possession of the property and as the plaintiff is a valid purchaser for proper consideration, he is entitled to declaration as well as recovery of possession and mesne profits.

(3.) POINTS: It is not in dispute that the plaintiff filed a suit for declaration as well as recovery of possession of the property. The plaintiff is said to have purchased the property from D-4 for a valid consideration. D-4 and Velu Gounder are the sons of Ramasamy Gounder are not in dispute. According to the plaintiff, there was oral partition between D-4 and his brother some 30 years back and the suit property fell to the share of D-4 and he had entrusted the work of management of the properties with D-1 to D-3 as he was residing in the house of his father-in-law. D-4 had only daughter and no male children. D-4 used to come to the village often and gave money to D-1 to D-3 for the purpose of meeting agricultural expenses and also used to be present at the time of harvest and patta was also granted in the name of D-4. He wanted to perform the marriage of his daughter and for that purpose only he sold the suit property to the plaintiff. On the other hand, the appellants mainly contended that some 40 years back after marriage D-4 went and settled in his father-in-law's place and orally sold away the property to Velu Gounder and ever since the death, they are in possession of the property.