RAMASAMI PILLAI Vs. AMARAJOTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S.A.No.116 of 2005 This appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff whose appeal filed before the First Appellate Court against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in dismissing the suit in O.S.No.650 of 1995 dated 19.07.2000 was dismissed in A.S.No.132 of 2000 dated 3.3.2004. S.A.No.117 of 2005 This appeal has been preferred by the defendants against the judgment and decree passed by the First appellate Court in dismissing the appeal in A.S.No.133 of 2000 dated 3.3.2004 filed against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.642 of 1995 dated 19.07.2000.

(2.) THE First Appellate Court has heard both the appeals in A.S.Nos. 132 and 133 of 2000 jointly and had delivered a common judgment on 3.3.2004.

(3.) THE case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.642 of 1995 are as follows: THE suit properties are originally belonged to one Poovayee Ammal. Poovayee Ammal had executed a registered settlement deed on 07.10.1960 in favour of one Subbrayapillai. Subbrayapillai executed a settlement deed and enjoying the property from whom the plaintiff's mother Meenakshi Ammal had purchased for Rs.200/- by means of a registered sale deed on 16.08.1967. From the date of purchase, the plaintiff's mother was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, who died 10 years back. After the death of Meenakshi Ammal, the plaintiff is the only legal heir and had inherited the property and enjoyed it by paying kist to the Government without any interruption. THE suit properties are enjoyed by the plaintiff and his mother more than the statutory period. Hence, they have perfected title by adverse possession. THE defendants are not having any right or title in the suit properties at any time. Since defendants are having property adjacent to the suit property and using the situation that the plaintiff is residing in Kallakurichi, to get unlawful gain, the defendants attempted to trespass into the suit on 13.6.1995 which is unlawful. If the defendants are not restrained by means of a permanent injunction from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment, it would cause irreparable loss and injury. Hence, the suit.