A.K. SIVAPPA Vs. C.M. KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant.

(2.) The Plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of his title and for possession and for permanent injunction. It is the case of the plaintiff that he had purchased the suit property from one B.Nagarajamurthy under the sale deed dated 1.9.1984 and his vendor exercised the right of ownership over the suit site along with other sites in different survey numbers. The Demand Register maintained by the local Municipality shows the name of B.G.Balakrishnamurhy, father of the plaintiff's vendor as the owner of the suit site and he was also paying tax to the Municipality . B.G.Balakrishnamurthy , the original owner of the suit property died on 21.2.1978 leaving behind him his only son, the plaintiff's vendor who sold the property to the plaintiff for valuable consideration and by virtue of the said purchase the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit property. The defendant has no right in the suit property. But he had occupied the suit property as a trespasser when the plaintiff's vendor was away from the suit village. The defendant also obtained certain tax receipts from the Municipality by coercion. The defendant is only a trespasser in the suit property. It is further stated that the town portion where the suit property is situate is almost in ruins and because of that there was no inhabitant in the said area including the suit property. In the said circumstances, Municipality was also not collecting tax for the vacant site and therefore, the plaintiff would not pay the tax for the suit site. The plaintiffs efforts to get the possession of the suit property did not bear fruits and hence, he filed the suit.

(3.) The defendant in his written statement has stated that neither Nagarajamurthy nor his father Balakrishnamurthy were the owners of the suit property. At no point of time title was passed as to the plaintiff under sale deed dated 1.9.1984 obtained from Nagarajamurthy. It is the case of the defendant that the suit property originally belonged to Valajapet Municipality and the defendant entered into the suit property and taken possession of the entire property and had constructed a thatched house in a portion in the year 1970 and since then, he had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property in his own right. He has been paying the house tax to the Municipality under the assessment No.3576. The defendant also obtained electricity service connection to the house in the year 1978 and in the year 1983, he had obtained water connection to the house. The name of the defendant's name also appears in the electoral roll even in the year 1973. The house was given a door number 103 and subsequently, it was changed to No.15. The father of the plaintiff's vendor Balakrishnamurthy issued a notice on 6.8.1973 claiming right and also admitting the possession of the suit property by the defendant and the defendant denied his right orally. But on the other hand, Balakrishnamurthy admitted the possession of the suit property by the defendant and this defendant has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit property from the year 1970 and therefore, he has perfected title by adverse possession. As long as Balakrishnamurthy was alive, he had not taken any action nor his son had taken any action against the defendant and they never asserted their title against this defendant, at least on and from 6.8.1973, the date on which they have issued a notice. The defendant's possession was accepted as early as 6.8.1973 and the suit was filed on 17.12.1985 and therefore, the suit was filed only after 12 years from the date of notice and by that time, the defendant perfected title by adverse possession and therefore, the suit is not maintainable. The sale deed obtained by the plaintiff is only a sham and nominal document and the plaintiff was not a bona fide purchaser of the suit property for valuable consideration and thereby, prays for the dismissal of the suit.