MALLIKKINNISHA Vs. JOTHINATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These Revisions are directed against the Fair and Decreetai orders passed in I.A.No.530 of 2018 in O.S.No.70 of 2014, dtd. 5/10/2018 and I.A.No.528 of 2018 in O.S.No.70 of 2014, dtd. 18/9/2018, wherein, the learned District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Kattumannarkoil, Cuddalore District, rejected the petitions filed to examine the Village Administrative Officer, Revenue Inspector and Tahsilder as witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff.

(2.) The petitioner instituted the suit in O.S.No.70 of 2014 to declare that she is the absolute owner of the suit property; to declare that the sale deed executed by the first respondent/first defendant dtd. 24/6/2013 in favour of the second respondent/second defendant as null and void; and for permanent injunction restraining the third defendant from registering any deeds in respect of the suit property.

(3.) It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property admeasuring an extent of 0.36 cents originally belonged to Ulaganathan and he died intestate. He had three sons viz., the first defendant-Jothinathan, Thanganathan and Thivyanathan. The said Thivyanathan died unmarried at his tender age. Thereafter, by an oral partition, the first defendant-Jothinathan and Thanganathan inherited the properties, including the suit property equally. Subsequently, the said Thanganathan died on 25/5/1995, leaving behind his wife Saroja, daughters, Sarala, Sangeetha, Sathia and sons Sankaranath, Sathiyaseelan as his legal heirs. Subsequent to the death of Thanganathan, his wife Saroja made a request to the Revenue Authorities to make correction in the computer patta, by including her name and delete the name of the first defendant in the computer patta. After mutation of revenue records, the legal heirs of Thanganathan sold the property to the petitioner on 10/1/2013. According to the plaintiff, the first defendant had been attempting to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the petitioner.