LAWS(MAD)-2002-9-195

K RAJU Vs. ARUL MARY

Decided On September 30, 2002
K.RAJU Appellant
V/S
ARUL MARY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant.

(2.) The case in brief is as follows:- The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that he is the owner of the suit property and a consequential relief of permanent injunction. The suit property originally belonged to one Arokiasamy, father of the 1st defendant. The said Arokiasamy purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 20th February 1952 for a sum of Rs.700/=. He was in possession and enjoyment of the property and divided the same into two portions and on the western portion, he had put up a house and resided there and on the eastern side, he had put up a foundation. Subsequently, Arokiasamy sold the suit property to the plaintiff under a registered document dated 19.02.1982 for a consideration of Rs.6,000/= and he was placed in possession of the property. The two sons of Arokiasamy had also attested the sale deed. The property was also sold for discharging the previous mortgage over the property. The property was also assessed in the name of the plaintiff after purchase and he has been paying the taxes. The 1st defendant is the daughter of Arokiasamy and the 2nd defendant is her husband. Arokiasamy had permitted his daughter and the 1st defendant had resided in the house in the western portion of the property. The plaintiff after purchase, wanted to put up superstructure; but the defendants questioned the right. Hence, the suit. The 1st defendant filed a written statement and denied that his father purchased the property under a sale deed dated 20th February 1952. The marriage between defendants 1 and 2 is a love marriage and it took place on 27.09.1951. The 2nd defendant was employed in Military and at the time of discharge, he got substantial money. Out of this money only, they approached the father of the 1st defendant to purchase the property; but the father had purchased the property nominally in his name. When questioned, her father had entrusted the document and she was permitted to put up construction in the property. Her father had no right, title and interest in the property and he was only a name lendor. Subsequently, she had filed a plan before the Dindigul Municipality and put up construction in the property and she was paying the taxes. She had also extended the construction and for violation, proceedings were taken against her and she had also paid the penalty. Her father moved the authorities to transfer the assessment in 1975, but it was dismissed. The sale deed in favour of the plaintiff is not valid and it is not binding on her. The 1st defendant and her husband are in possession and enjoyment of the property for more than 30 years adverse to the knowledge of the plaintiff. The 1st defendant also filed additional written statement raising a plea that they are in possession and enjoyment of the property for more than 35 years and they have also prescribed the title by adverse possession. The trial court framed 3 issues and on behalf of the plaintiff, P.Ws.1 to 4 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-19 were marked and on the side of the defendants, D.Ws.1 to 5 were examined and Exs.B-1 to B-79 were marked. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and aggrieved against this, the defendants preferred A.S.No. 41 of 1989 on the file of District Court, Dindigul and also filed Exs.B-80 to B-88 and the learned Judge after hearing the parties, allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved against this, the plaintiff has come forward with the present second appeal.

(3.) At the time of admission of the second appeal, this Court framed the following substantial question of law for consideration: Whether the first appellate court was correct in reversing the judgment of the trial court on the ground of adverse possession ?