DAMODARAN Vs. EZHUMALAI, KESAVAN, MUNIYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein, as plaintiff, filed Original Suit No.116 of 2001 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirukoilur, for declaration of title and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property. He based his claim on Ex.A.1 Sale Deed dated 27.01.1964, evidencing purchase of the suit property by him from one Manickam Gounder one of the sons of Narayanan who, apart from the plaintiff's vendor-Manickam Gounder, had another son by name Krishna Gounder, whose sons are the 2nd defendant-Kesavan ie., father of 3rd defendant-Munian. Subsequent to the oral partition effected by Narayanan, Manickam Gounder is said to have received 2 cents in S. No.41/11A and 2 cents were allotted to the share of Krishna Gounder. Subsequently, the plaintiff, through Ex.A1 Sale deed purchased the suit property from Manickam Gounder. The share given to Krishna Gounder ie., 2 cents, was inherited by his son Kesavan/2nd defendant, who had two issues Venkatachalapathy (already died) and Munian/3rd defendant, who admittedly sold 1 = cents out of two cents to Elumalai, the first defendant. However, even after the oral partition of the property between the two sons of Narayanan and subsequent sale by them, neither of the parties ever took any immediate step to apply for independent pattas in respect of their respective shares, and in terms of the joint patta under Ex.A2, dated 09.11.1984, the plaintiff is entitled to 2 cents in S. No.41/11A and D-1 Elumalai is entitled to 1 = cents. In these circumstances, apprehending that his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property for about 37 years might be interfered with by the defendants, who attempted to trespass into the suit property on 05.04.2001, the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction as stated above.

(2.) The Trial Court, by observing that, in the schedule, the plaintiff mentioned more extent of land viz., 2 = cents instead of 2 cents, held that the extent does not tally with the records connected to New S. No.41/11A5 and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said Order of the trial court, the plaintiff went on appeal by filing A.S. No.111 of 2004 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Villupuram, and the said Court, concurring with the findings of the trial court, dismissed the appeal; hence, the present Appeal by the unsuccessful plaintiff/appellant herein.

(3.) At the time of admission, the following substantial questions of law have been formulated by this Court for consideration:-