MANICKA KONAR Vs. VADIVEL KONAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in O.S.No.692 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pattukkottai are the appellants in this second appeal. The said suit was instituted by one Vadivel Konar against Asiammal and the appellants herein. Asiammal was none other the mother of the defendants 2 to 7. The case of the plaintiff was that first defendant/Asiammal was permitted to enjoy the property by way of leave and license from the year 1984 in the suit property that belongs to him. Since she attempted to setup an adverse claim by effecting mutation in the revenue records, the plaintiff moved the revenue authorities. The revenue authorities made it clear that the plaintiff will have to establish his case only before the jurisdictional civil court. Therefore, the suit was filed seeking the relief of declaration as well as recovery of possession. After the suit was filed, before writ statement could be filed, Asiammal passed away. The third defendant/Ramaiah Konar filed written statement. The stand taken in the written statement was that the suit property originally belonged to one Rama Konar. It was further claimed that Rama Konar had two wives. Veerapa Konar, the father of the plaintiff/Vadivel Konar was born through the first wife while Asiammal was born through the second wife. When the plaintiff's father was alive, he had orally gifted the suit property in favour of Asiammal and that for more than half a century, Asiammal was enjoying the property. The house standing in the suit property was also constructed only by Asiammal. For more than 35 years, tax is being assessed in respect of the property in the name of Ramaiah Konar/D3. A plea of adverse possession was also projected in the written statement.

(2.) The plaintiff/Vadivel Konar examined himself as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A21 were marked through him. Ramaiah Konar examined himself as D.W.1 and Alagar, Rajappan and Subbiah Konar were examined as D.W.2, D.W.3 and D.W.4 and Exs.B1 to B31 were marked through them.

(3.) The learned trial judge after a consideration of the evidence on record decreed the suit as prayed by judgment and decree dated 27.03.2000. Questioning the same, the defendants filed A.S.No.27 of 2000 before the Sub Court, Pattukkottai. The first appellate court by judgment and decree dated 28.03.2001 dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Challenging the same, this second appeal was filed.