CHINNAPONNU Vs. LAKSHMANA NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd defendant has filed the appeal. According to the respondents, they belong to a Hindu undivided family and the suit property belongs to them and they were enjoying it under the old patta no.227 new patta no.504. Both the pattas were in the name of the 1st respondent as the Manager of the Joint family. They were also paying kist and nobody else but the respondents have any right in the suit property. They have also enjoyed it for over 45 years and have perfected title by adverse possession. According to the respondents, originally this property belonged to one Appurangan in patta no.286. He sold the property under an oral sale for Rs.75/- in 1920 to one Veeraja Naidu and handed over possession to Veeraja Naidu. Veeraja Naidu's wife was one Thirumalai Ammal and they had a daughter called Andal and a son by name Narayanasamy. Narayanasamy's widow Thayarammal is residing with the respondents. She had no issue. The respondents are the sons of Narayanasamy's sister Andalammal. Andalammal's husband Ramanuja Naidu had some property and on 29.1.1943, Veeraja Naidu's wife Thirumalai Ammal, Thayarammal and Andalammal's husband Ramanuja Naidu executed a settlement deed in favour of the respondents. At that time, the respondents were minors. Under the settlement deed, the suit items have been mentioned and pursuant to the settlement deed, the guardian of the minors took possession of the suit property on their behalf and had been enjoying the same. This is with regard to suit item no.1. As regards the suit item no.2, after Veeraja Naidu's lifetime, his son Narayanasamy was enjoying the same and after him, his widow Thayarammal was enjoying the property. Since the respondents are her close relatives and she had no one to assist her, the respondents are also in enjoyment of the said item 2 on her behalf and therefore, the suit was filed for declaration and injunction against the appellant who is a stranger.

(2.) The appellant was the 2nd defendant and she filed a written statement. According to her, there was no cause of action for the suit, nor did the respondents have any right to title or for possession in the suit property. According to the appellant, her father Anjaapuli and his father Ponnan bought the suit property from one Krishnan on 21.7.1931 under Ex.B3. From that date, Ponnan and Anjaapuli have been in possession of the suit property. They have also been given patta no.280. This was in Ponnan's name and Ponnan alone was paying the kist. Thereafter, the suit properties were included in patta no.227. Anjaapuli died 10 years prior to the suit. In suit item 1, the appellant had fixed a bore-well and an oil mill and she claimed to be enjoying and cultivating the suit properties. An additional written statement was filed in which it was denied that the suit property belonged to Appurangan and that there was an oral sale in favour of Veeraja Naidu. The relationship was denied. The settlement deed was also denied.

(3.) The trial Court disbelieved the settlement deed. The trial Court also found that no document was filed to show that the mother of the respondents took possession of the suit property pursuant to the settlement deed or that there was anything to show that the settlement deed was accepted. The trial Court also took note of the evidence of P.W.1 in which he had admitted that only two months prior to the suit he knew about the oral sale, and also held that when the documents do not prove the case, it is not possible to grant title on the basis of the patta passbook. Therefore, the trial Court held that the respondents had not proved their title to the suit properties.