SUBRAMANIYA KONAR Vs. PALANI PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S.No.341 of 1982 and the first defendant in O.S.No. 354 of 1982, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gingee has preferred the present second appeals, aggrieved against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.7 of 1987 and A.S.No.10 of 1987 on the file of Subordinate Court, Tindivanam, made on 22.9.1988, reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 9.12.1986.

(2.) THE case in brief is as follows: THE plaintiff in O.S.No.341 of 1982 filed the suit for declaration of his title and for permanent injunction. THE plaintiff's father purchased among other properties 2.88 acres in Dry R.S.No.14/2, 16 cents in Dry Re.S.No.14/3 and 13 cents in Dry R.S.No.14/4 all in Kanjjor Village, Gingee Taluk under the registered sale deed dated 14.4.1937. Pursuant to the purchase his father took possession of the property and also took possession of 1.11 acre of land viz the suit property in S.No.15/2 situated immediately on the west of Dry S.No.14/4 and 14/4 (marked as A B C D E F G )in the rough sketch put up a ridge along AB" H I" levelled the lands and was in possession and enjoyment of the said properties in his own right as absolute owner. THE plaintiff's father and the plaintiff were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property more than the statutory period and they have also prescribed title. THE properties covered under sale deed dated 14.4.1937 and the suit property all form one single plot, uniform i n level. THE property in possession and enjoyment of the defendant is 3.96 acres and there is permanent ridge dividing the marked portion. In April, 1982 an updating survey was made in Gingee Taluk in order to sub divide the holdings and to give patta to persons in actual possession. THE suit property was given in S.No.15/2B and the possession of the suit property by the plaintiff was also recorded and notice under Section 9(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act of 8 of 1923 was given to the plaintiff and to the 1st defendant. No appeal has been filed by the first defendant against the order. As such the order of the surveyor is final and binding upon the parties and they are not entitled to dispute the same now. THE first defendant is the owner of 3.96 acres in Dry S.No. 15/2 now 15/2A. THE 2nd defendant is the brother of the 1st defendant and defendants 3 and 4 are sons of the first defendant. Defendant No.5 is the son-in-law of the first defendant. When the plaintiff went to plough the suit property the defendants interfered with his possession and enjoyment and hence the suit.

(3.) THE parties and the subject matter in both the appeals are one and the same and as such a common judgment is pronounced. THE parties will be hereinafter referred to as they are described in O.S.No.341 of 1982 to avoid confusion.