RAMACHANDRAN Vs. VALLIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 1 to 3 are the appellants before me. Respondents 1 and 2 suit for declaration of the title of the 1st plaintiff to the suit property and also declaration that the 2nd plaintiff is a lessee of the 1st plaintiff in respect of the suit under the registered lease deed dated 7.1.1975. They also prayed for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession. Subsequently, they prayed for an alternative relief of recovery of possession by amending the plaint.

(2.) THE case set out in the plaint is shortly as follows: THE suit property originally belonged Muthial Animal, mother of the 1st plaintiff by purchase under a registered sale deed 25.4.1932 executed by one Ramaswamy Maistry. She was in possession till her death about 1950. On her death, the property devolved on the 1st plaintiff and as she was away from the suit village after her marriage, the properties were entrusted to certain persons, who were cultivating the same on her behalf. THE 2nd plaintiff started cultivation a lessee under the 1st plaintiff from about 1969 under a machalika and on 7.1.1975 a deed was executed and registered in favour of the 2nd plaintiff. THE 1st defendant is a relation of the 1st plaintiff. Taking advantage of her absence in the village, the 1st defendant is claiming hostile title and setting up defendants 2 and 3 to claim permissive possession through him. Hence the suit instituted. THE 4th defendant is impleaded only as a formal and no relief is sought against him.

(3.) NEITHER the 1st defendant nor the 3rd defendant filed any written statement. There however, an endorsement on the written statement filed by the 2nd defendant reading follows: