M RAJAGOPAL MUDALIAR Vs. K R VENKATARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT in O.S.No.24 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif, Arakkonam has preferred the present second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.123 of 1987 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge at Vellore, dated 12.7.1989 reversing the decree and judgment of the trial Court dated 26.10.1987.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows: Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title to the suit property and for permanent injunction. THE portion marked as A, B, C, D, in the plaint plan was the last plot or the Western side after selling the plot to Munikrishna Reddy by Sankara Naidu. THE said Sankara Naidu stating that is the last plot flanked on both sides by the property of the said Munikrishna Naidu on the East and Kanniappa Naidu on the West sold the said A, B, C, D, plan marked land by giving all boundaries in favour of M.Ramakrishna Pillai under a sale deed dated 10.10.1946 for valuable consideration and delivered possession of the same. In turn the said Ramakrishna Pillai sold the A, B, C, D, mentioned punja land with the boundaries in favour of the plaintiff under a sale deed dated 17.11.1957. Immediately the plaintiff constructed a house therein and subsequently reconstructed the house as a modern one and fenced the entire area along A, B, C, D, with compound walls. THE plaintiffs predecessors in title have perfected their title to the suit property. THEy submitted a plan and only after approval, the house was reconstructed. THE plaintiff availed loan from House Mortgage Bank for reconstruction of the house. THE portion marked as E, B, C, F, was kept appurtenant to the main building and had been all these years used by the plaintiff forstoring all his articles, keeping utensils for washing and also for using his cattle heads being stationed there. THE plaintiff alone is entitled to the suit property along with the adjoining house. He also had put up a thatched shed in the property and is enjoying the same. THE defendant attempted to interfere with his peaceful and absolute possession of the property. Hence, the suit.

(3.) THE plaintiff filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction relating to the suit property. THE entire suit property is marked A, B, C, D, in the plaint plan. Ex.A-1 dated 1.10.1946 is the sale deed executed by Sankara Naidu in favour of Ramakrishna Pillai. Under Ex.A-2 dated 11.7.1955, Ramakrishna Pillai mortgaged the property in favour of one Narayana Rao. THE plaintiff under Ex.A-3 dated 17.11.1957 purchased the property from Ramakrishna Pillai and thereafter the plaintiff had mortgaged the property with Co-operative Society also. THEre is no dispute relating to the purchase made by the plaintiff but the dispute is whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim the entire area or only a lesser extent.