SUBRAMANIA THEVAR Vs. ALAGAR THEVAR ALIAS AZHAGARSAMITHEVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants are the appellants in the above second appeal. One Alagar Thevar @ Azhagarsamithevar filed the suit in O. S. No. 273 of 1986 on the file of District Munsif, Paramakudi for declaration of title and recovery of possession.

(2.) ACCORDING to the plaint averments, the suit property originally belonged to Alagar Thevar's father Ramu Thevar and Ramu Thevar had four sons and three daughters. The plaintiff is one of the sons. Out of three daughters, two daughters died without issue and Angammal is one of the daughter. Angammal also died about ten years prior to the suit. Angammal had three sons and one daughter. The said Angammal's daughters' husband and the sons are the appellants herein. Ramu Thevar died 60 years prior to the suit. The plaintiff alone is entitled to the suit properties and since the plaintiff is normally residing in Burma, he had entrusted the suit properties to Angammal and some other properties to Angammal's son Manisamy Thevar. After Angammal died, the first appellant is in permissive enjoyment of the suit property. When the plaintiff returned to India recently, sometime prior to the suit, he realised that the appellants were trying to cheat him of the property by concocting documents fraudulently and therefore some notices were issued to the appellants as well as Manisamy Thevar. After receiving the notice, the said Mani Samy Thevar entrusted the suit properties to the plaintiff. Since the appellants did not comply with the demand made in the notice, the suit was filed. The appellants denied the suit claim stating that none of Ramu Thevar's sons are alive and Angammal was the only legal heir to Ramu Thevar's estate and she had been enjoying the property absolutely from 1956. Angammal had executed a Will and Manisamy who was aggrieved by this had deliberately set up these proceedings to the knowledge of the appellants. No such person by name of the plaintiff ever lived in the suit village and no one had asked Angammal to look after the property and from 1974, when Angammal died, the appellants 2 to 4 became entitiled to the suit properties under the Will marked as Ex. B. 3 dated 5. 2. 1973. Any documents that are marked by the plaintiff must have been concocted with the help of Manisamy and therefore the suit properties cannot be recovered by the plaintiff. It is also claimed that the suit was barred by limitation.

(3.) THE trial court on a detailed consideration of oral and documentary evidence, dismissed the suit and therefore the plaintiff filed the appeal which was allowed and hence the second appeal has been filed.