HARIKESAVAN Vs. PURUSHOTHAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the 1st appellate court in A.S.No.254 of 1995 dated 28.03.1998 in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial court made in O.S.No.116 of 1977 dated 31.07.1995 in dismissing the suit. The appellants were the defendants 1 and 2 and the respondent was the plaintiff before the trial court. For convenience, the rank of parties before the trial court are being maintained infra.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff before the trial court as stated in the plaint would be as follows:- The suit property dry Sur.No.486/3 0.33 cents. The plaintiff's paternal grand-father Kumarasamy Gounder purchased 0.10 cents out of 0.33 cents in S.No.486/C. On 12.04.1907 he purchased another extent of 0.10 cents in the same survey number on 11.06.1917 and the remaining 0.13 cents is his ancestral property. The said Kumarasamy Gounder was in possession and enjoyment on his own right till his life time and after his life time, his two sons Narayanasamy and Govindasamy Gounder divided the properties belonging to Kumarasamy Gounder and in that partition the suit property fell to the share of the plaintiff's father, Narayanasamy Gounder. Plaintiff's and other properties in his own right for having Patta in his name, he was paying kist for the suit property till his death. Narayanasamy Gounder died in or about 1972 leaving behind his widow, three daughters and four sons. They are co-owners and this suit is filed for and on their behalf also. After the death of Narayanasamy Gounder, the plaintiff is in exclusive possession of the suit property and hence the plaintiff and his predecessors in title had prescribed title by adverse possession to the suit property. Plaintiff and defendants are each entitled to half-share in 10 H.P.Electric Motor. It was purchased by plaintiff's father and defendant in 1966 and with regard to dispute which arose between them, the defendant preferred a complaint and took delivery of the Motor pump from Sub-Magistrate Court, Villupuram. The 1st defendant has unauthorisedly executed a Settlement Deed in favour of his wife namely the 2nd defendant with regard to the Settlement Deed which is not true, validity and binding on the plaintiff. The defendants who had created documents claiming to be in possession and hence this plaintiff has filed this suit for declaration of his title to the suit property and for permanent injunction or in the alternative recovery of possession.

(3.) THE trial court had framed necessary issues on the above pleadings and had come to the conclusion of dismissing the claim of the plaintiff without costs.