N S RAMANATHAN Vs. N KRISHANAMOORTHY IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 and 2 in O. S. No. 207/82 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Chengalpattu, are the appellants in the second appeal. The first respondent herein filed the suit for declaration of his title over B Schedule property to the plaint and for a permanent injunction. He died pending second appeal. His legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 4 to 8. The eighth respondent also passed away and her legal representatives were brought on record as respondents 9 to 12.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff was as follows : The suit A Schedule property was a vacant site allotted to him in a partition suit in O. S. No. 97/61 on the file of the Sub Court, Chengalapattu. He was having his house opposite to this site. This house also fell t6 his share in the partition. Prior to this suit, it was enjoyed by the plaintiffs family exclusively. He had put up a small construction and was enjoying the same. On the eastern side of the property, he had grown velinkathan trees and using this portion for tethering cattle and also parking carts. The property in dispute is shown as B Schedule property being the eastern portion of A Schedule property. The defendants did not have any right or title over the same and as they were attempting to interfere with the plaintiffs possession as if the property belonged to them, the present suit for declaration of his title to B Schedule property and for injunction against the defendants came to be filed.

(3.) The first defendant filed a written statement and the same was adopted by the second defendant. It was false to state that the suit property was allotted to the plaintiff in a partition and that he was in possession of the same. The plaintiff never enjoyed the eastern 23 feet east west shown as B Schedule in the plaint. The B Schedule property originally belonged to one Duraiswamy Iyer and later inherited by his only son Viswanatha Iyer, who endowed the property by way of a gift deed along with his major sons on 27-10-1965. The defendants were enjoying the properties as trustees of the Vinayagar Temple. The entire A Schedule property was not allotted to the plaintiffs share in the partition suit. The fact that there was a partition and a compound wall on the eastern side would itself show that there was no right, title or interest to the plaintiff over the B Schedule property.