ABDUL JABBAR Vs. ABDUL MUTHALIFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed by the first defendant in 0. S. No. 64 of 1972 in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Pudukottai. The plaintiff filed the above suit for a declaration that he is the absolute owner of a rice mill known as 'Muthalif Rice Mill' and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession and enjoyment. There are three defendants, who are the brothers of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff. his father, who had some lands and a house sold them and settled down in a village called Kulamangalam in or about 1941. He was not able to make both ends meet and the plaintiff left for Kualalampur in or about 1952. The case of the plaintiff was that between 1962 and 1966 he had sent about Rs. 24,000 and between 1966 and 1971 further amounts totalling Rs. 24000 and that the remittances were subject to the understanding that the moneys belonged to the plaintiff and that they had to be used for his benefit. It was stated by the plaintiff that with the help of such funds the site over which the suit rice mill stands was purchased and the building for the rice mill was also constructed and the rice mill was installed therein. The plaintiff had the licence issued in his name and was in possession and enjoyment of the rice mill since July, 1972. As the first defendant entered the mill without the knowledge of the plaintiff and removed the account books etc., the plaintiff bas come forward with the present suit for declaration and injunction as mentioned above.

(2.) The defendants in their written statement pointed out that the remittances were to be utilised for the benefit of the whole family, that the mill was never intended to belong exclusively to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff had. in the presence of respectable members, accepted in writing the joint title of all the four brothers. According to the first defendant, he was dispossessed only after the plaintiff obtained an order of interim injunction in the suit' and he had not removed any account books etc., as alleged,

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge, who tried the suit, decreed it and the defendants took the matter in appeal, which was heard by the District Judge of Pudukottai. Considering the evidence, the appellate court was of the view that the case of the defendants that the mill should be treated and enjoyed as the common property was totally false and cannot be upheld. The decree passed by the trial court was, therefore, confirmed. The first defendant alone had filed the present second appeal, defendants I and 3 being imp leaded as pro forma parties.