BALU Vs. GURUVAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 2 to 10 in O. S. No. 153/84 on the file of the District Munsif of Paramakudi, are the appellants in the second appeal. The respondents herein filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit properties, which are two in number.

(2.) THE necessary facts leading to the second appeal are as under: there was one Periya Karuppa Konar. He had a son Sivanu Konar, who died about 50 years prior to the suit. His wife Sathayee Ammal pre-deceased him. Sivanu Konar and Sathayee Ammal had one son Thavasi Konar and four daughters, Karuppayee, Ramayee, Kuriyayee and Meenal. Thavasi Konar died about 20 years prior to the suit. His wife Nagammal pre-deceased him. They had three daughters, Chellammal, Guruvammal and Rajammal. Chellammal pre-deceased her father. Guruvammal, Rajammal and Chellammal's son Kesavan are the plaintiffs in the suit. Karuppayee and Ramayee, two of the daughters of Sivanu Konar and Sathayee Amma; died issueless. Their third daughter Kuriyayee's son was Vellaichami Konar, the first defendant in the suit, who died pending suit and his children are defendants 5 to 10, while Sivana Konar and Sathayee Ammal's last daughter Meenal's children are defendants 2 to 4. According to the plaintiffs, on the death of Sivana Konar, as per the Hindu Law prevailing at that time, though Thavasi Konar alone became entitled to the suit properties, out of affection for his two sisters Kuriyayee and Meenal, he was enjoying all the properties with the assistance of those two sisters. While so, after the lifetime of Thavasi Konar, the plaintiffs were in enjoyment of the suit properties with the assistance of the defendants. However, suddenly as it were, the defendants colluded and conspired and in the first week of May, 1981, committed trespass upon the suit property consisting of vacant site, garden and land. The plaintiffs convened a panchayat and in the panchayat a mutual agreement was reached. On 28-5-1981 an unregistered agreement was entered into between the plaintiffs on the one hand and defendants 1 and 4 on the other. As per the terms of the agreement, the plaintiffs are to enjoy the suit properties absolutely and accordingly, they are also in possession and enjoyment. One of the clauses in the agreement provides that at the time, the plaintiffs applied to the Revenue Officials, the defendants should not raise any objection. The plaintiffs also applied for change of patta to the Revenue Officials. Contrary to the agreement before the panchayat, the defendants not only objected to the change of patta, but also attempted to commit trespass upon the suit properties. The plaintiffs approached the police, who effectively prevented the trespass. The suit properties continued to be in the possession of the plaintiffs. However, since 1-4-1984 the defendants tried to dispute the plaintiffs' possession and enjoyment and attempting to interfere with the same. Right through the defendants, their parents and grandparents had been only assisting the plaintiffs in their enjoyment of the suit properties and never claimed any right for themselves. In these circumstances, the suit came to be filed.

(3.) THE prayer in the plaint further states that in the event of the Court coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not in possession, they should be granted relief of recovery of possession.