K RAJENDRAN Vs. ELUMALAI CHETTIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 12.11.2009 passed in C.S.No.425 of 1998 on the file of this Court, by the learned single Judge. The plaintiff is the appellant.

(2.) THE appellant/plaintiff filed the suit as indigent person seeking for a Declaration that 'B' and 'C' schedule properties belong to him; to direct the defendants to deliver possession of the suit properties to him; and to pay a sum of Rs.54,000/- towards the past damages and also future damages at the same rate together with the costs of the suit.

(3.) THE eighth defendant in his written statement has denied the plaint averments that Parasurama Chettiar was running a maligai as well as hardware business by himself and had acquired number of properties by his own exertions. According to the eighth defendant, all the business were run jointly by Parasurama Chettiar and Natesa Chettiar and investment and management were also joint and for the convenience of management, Parasurama Chettiar lived in Madras while Natesa Chettiar managed the properties in the village and they were joint owners having equal rights in the properties. It is further stated in the written statement that there was no settlement either on 23.6.1961 or any other date and the settlement deed itself is non-existent and he has also denied that Elumalai Chettiar was described as adopted son of Parasurama Chettiar and has stated that there was no such adoption. It is further stated by the eighth defendant that there was no coercion or undue influence of Kuttiammal and she voluntarily entered into a compromise in the civil suit in O.S.No.76 of 1969 and a final decree was passed on 24.4.1974 in the presence of all necessary and proper parties and the decree became final. THE eighth defendant has further stated that Adoption deed pleaded by the plaintiff is false and there is no custom or usage for such adoption in the community or in the family and the plaintiff being a major, Kuttiammal could not have adopted him and the plaint averment regarding 'Datta Homam' giving the plaintiff in adoption by natural father and the registration of the Adoption deed, are false and denied. According to the eighth defendant, the plaintiff was not the adopted son of Kuttiammal and he was never treated or recognised as her adopted son and he has no right in any of the properties and not entitled to any relief and he is not entitled to sue as indigent person since he is a man of means. It is further stated by the eighth defendant that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief regarding 'B' and 'C' schedule properties and the eighth defendant is in possession of all the suit properties except 'C' schedule properties, right from the date of compromise dealt with in O.S.No.76 of 1969 and has also prescribed title to the said properties by adverse possession.