LAKSHMIAMMAL Vs. NAGAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal was filed initially by Lakshmiammal, the 4th defendant in the original suit and the legal representatives of the deceased 3rd defendant Sundaram, namely Adhi Ramani and Meena Sangeetha. During the pendency of the second appeal, by an order dated 13.04.2010 made in M.P.No.2 of 2010, V.P.Maragatha Mani who purchased the property from appellants 1 to 3 was impleaded as the 4th appellant. Respondents 1 to 7 were the plaintiffs 2 and 4 to 9. Respondents 8 and 9 are the legal representatives of the deceased third plaintiff Mylathal. Respondents 10 to 14 were defendants 6 to 10 in the original suit.

(2.) ORIGINAL Suit No.3654 of 1996 was filed by Ayyanna Thevar, the sole plaintiff against Alamelu, Muthuswamy and Sundaram, the original defendants 1 to 3 for a declaration that he was the absolute owner of the suit property, namely northern most portion of S.No.279 in Ramanathapuram Village, Coimbatore City having an extent of 78 = cents, for a direction directing the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the said property and for grant of a mandatory injunction for the removal of the building put up in the above said property by the defendants. Since during the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff Ayyanna Thevar died, his legal representatives Nagammal, Mylathal, Subramani, Srinivasan, Daivathal, Malarveni, Damodaran and Vasanthamani were impleaded as plaintiffs 2 to 9. Similarly, on the death of the first defendant Alamelu, her legal representatives Lakshmiammal, Ramaswamy Thevar, Veluswamy, Kumar, Chandra and Manoharan were impleaded as Defendants 4 to 9. On the death of second defendant Muthuswamy, besides recording Defendants 4 to 9 as his legal representatives, 10th defendant Dhandapani was also impleaded as one of his legal representatives. During the pendency of the suit, the 5th defendant Ramaswamy also died. No further steps were taken since his legal representatives were already existing defendants. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in accordance with their ranks in the suit and wherever necessary further descriptions are also made.

(3.) THE suit was resisted on the basis of the written statement and additional written statement filed by the first defendant Alamelu which were adopted by the Defendants 2 and 3. The fourth defendant who came to be impleaded on the death of the second defendant also contested the suit on the basis of the above said written statement. Besides a general denial of the plaint allegations, the other allegations made in the written statement and additional written statement, in brief, are as follows;