PAZHAMARUTHAI ALIAS MARUDAMATHU Vs. M SUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two second appeals arise out of two suits between the same parties in respect of the same suit property. S.A.No.1213 of 2000 arises out of O.S.No.238 of 1997 filed by the respondent against the appellants for declaration and recovery of possession. S.A.No.1214 of 2000 arises out of O.S.No.229 of 1997 filed by the appellant herein against the respondent for bare injunction in respect of the same property. By appellant, we refer to the 1st appellant in S.A. 1213 of 2000, who is the sole appellant in S.A.1214 of 2000.

(2.) THE facts briefly are as follows: THE suit property belonged to one Marudhamuthu, father of the respondent M.Subramanian, having purchased it on 27.9.1955 under a sale deed Ex.Al. Since the father of the respondent had to leave for Malaysia, he entrusted the property to the first defendant who had been managing it on behalf of the respondent's father and after his death, the respondent. In 1997, O.S.No.229 of 1997 was filed and temporary injunction was sought for. Only then, the respondent realized that the first appellant in S.A.No.1213 of 2000, who is the sole appellant in S.A.No.1214 of 2000 had altered the names in the property records taking advantage of the fact that the respondent's father's name Marudhamuthu which was similar to his name Muradhai which he had subsequently altered to Marudhai @ Murudhamathu. THE respondent tried to compromise the matter by inviting the elders of the community as well as the relatives to resolve the dispute. Since it failed, the other suit O.S. No.238 of 1997 was filed. THE suit for injunction was dismissed and the dismissal was confirmed by the first appellate court and so, S.A.No.1214 of 2000 was filed. Similarly, the suit for declaration and recovery of possession was decreed, which was confirmed by the first appellate court and so S.A.No.1213 of 2000 has been filed. In both the suits, the case of the appellants was that the respondent's father had never entrusted the property for management on his behalf; on the contrary, there was an oral sale for Rs.2,000 and there was also a promise by the respondent's father to execute the sale deed and therefore, according to the appellants, they had been managing the property in their own right and it was not true that the appellant had altered the records by falsely stating that his name was Marudhai @ Marudhamuthu. According to him, the authorities after a detailed enquiry, had come to the conclusion that it was only the appellant who was entitled to the suit property. Both the courts declined to accept the case of the appellants regarding the oral sale or the plea of adverse possession.

(3.) IN any event, the learned counsel submitted that the appellant had not proved factually, when, his possession became adverse and both the courts had therefore held against him and therefore there is no substantial question of law for consideration in the second appeal.