SENGUTTUVAN @ MANNAGATTI; VANAROJA Vs. VASANTHA AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendants against whom the suit filed by the plaintiff before the First Additional District Munsif Court, Tirukoilur, in O.S. No.170 of 1998, for declaration and permanent injunction with reference to 'A' schedule property and for recovery of possession of 'B' schedule property after demolition of the compound wall put up by the defendants, was decreed by the trial court vide judgment and decree dated, 04.02.2002, whereupon, they filed A.S. No.84 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional Sub Court, Villupuram, and the said appeal was dismissed by Judgment dated 31.03.2005, hence, the present Second Appeal.

(2.) Brief facts, which led to the filing of this second appeal, are as follows:-

(3.) During the course of trial, the defendants admitted that the 'B' schedule property is a part of the 'A' schedule property. It was further admitted by the defendants that whatever the property that lies in between the property of Mayavapillai on the north and the patta property of the defendants on the south belongs to the plaintiff. On the basis of the above admission and the documentary evidence, in particular Exs.A1 to A4, by taking note of the fact that 'A' schedule property originally belonged to the 5 brothers/sons of Ponnusamy and that the father of the plaintiff Mayavan had purchased the other 4 shares in the name of his wife Annammal and enjoyed the same along with his 1/5th share by paying tax and after sometime, they had conveyed the same to one Radhakrishnan, who, in turn, conveyed the same to the plaintiff and as such, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the 'A' schedule property, the trial court decreed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction holding that the plaintiff is entitled to 'A' schedule property to an extent of 27.6' east-west and 56.7' on the north south and that in respect of 'B' schedule property, she is entitled for recovery of possession after demolishing the compound wall. On appeal, the first appellate court, affirmed the verdict of the trial court on the basis of the admission made by the defendants that they had acquired the property comprised in S.No.120/4 on the east of the plaintiff's 'A' schedule property, 24' on the east-west and 46' on the North-south by virtue of Exs.B1 and B2 and the same lies in between, on the north of Mayavan's property and the patta land comprised in S. No.21/1 on the south of the defendants and also, whatever the property that lies in between the Keezhandaiveedhi on the west and on the east the defendants property comprised in S.No.120/4 on the east belongs to the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings of the courts below, the present appeal has been brought and this Court has framed the following substantial questions of law:-