K VIVEKANANDAN Vs. K NAGARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants in O.S.No.5015 of 2005 on the file of the XIV Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai, are the appellants.

(2.) THE respondent/ plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of possession of the suit property and also for damages. THE case of the respondent/ plaintiff was that the suit property and adjoining property originally belonged to one Kadirvel Nadar the father of the respondent/ plaintiff and also the father of the appellants/ defendants and the said Kadirvel Nadar had two wives and through his first wife Parvathy he had three sons namely Doosu Muthu, Chandrasekaran and the respondent herein. Through his second wife Rajamani he had seven sons namely Bhagavathi Singh, Napolean and the appellants herein. THEre was a partition in the family of Kadirvel Nadar on 25.8.1982 and in that partition the suit schedule property was allotted to the share of Kadirvel Nadar and his children through his second wife and the adjoining property was allotted to the share of the respondent/plaintiff and his two brothers who were his children through his first wife. In the partition deed the property allotted to the father Kadirvel Nadar and his children through his second wife was described as 'B' schedule property and the property allotted to the plaintiff and his two brothers were described as 'C' schedule property. After the death of Kadirvel Nadar his second wife Rajamani and her children sold the property that was allotted to their share under the partition deed dated 25.8.1982 to the respondent/ plaintiff and even after the sale the plaintiff/ respondent permitted Rajamani to reside in the suit property and she was also residing as a licensee and after her death the appellants/ defendants were also permitted to reside in the suit property as they happened to the respondent's half-brother and half-sister. While so, the respondent/ plaintiff required the suit premises and issued notice dated 7.3.2001 to the appellants to vacate and hand over possession after canceling the licence and as they did not hand over possession the suit was filed for the reliefs stated above.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the Judgement and Decree, the respondent/ plaintiff filed A.S.No.243 of 2005 in respect of the rejection of the remaining portion and the appellants filed A.S.No.95 of 2005 against the rejection of their counter claim. The lower appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondent/ plaintiff and dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants and held that under the sale deed Ex.A4 dated 14.2.1993 the entire suit property was conveyed to the respondent/ plaintiff and the appellants executed only a sale deed and not a mortgage deed as alleged by them. Hence, the two appeals were filed by the appellants.