B.S. BALASUBRAMANIAN Vs. B. RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The concurrent Judgments and decrees passed in O.S.No.439 of 2012, by the Principal Sub Court, Dindigul and in A.S.No.11 of 2018, by the Principal District Court, Dindigul, are being challenged in the present Second Appeal.

(2.) The first respondent/plaintiff has instituted a suit in O.S.No.439 of 2012 on the file of the trial Court for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction, wherein, the present appellant and the second respondent have been shown as defendants.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff was that originally, the suit property was assigned to one Marudhai Chettiar, son of Veerappan Chettiar by the Tamil Nadu Government, who in turn had mortgaged the property before the Solavandhan L.M.Bank for a sum of Rs.3,500.00. At this juncture, the said Marudhai Chettiar sold the property to the plaintiff's father-V.Balasubramani on 9/11/1973 by a registered sale deed for a valid sale consideration for a sum of Rs.7,000.00. The plaintiff's father remitted a sum of Rs.3,000.00 before the Bank and paid the balance Rs.3,000.00 and also paid the advance of Rs.1,000.00 to the said Maruthai Chettiar. Later on, the plaintiff's father mutated the revenue records in his name and has been paying kist and obtained electricity service connection in S.C.No.75. The said V.Balasubramani had executed a Will in favour of the plaintiff and his brother, dtd. 27/1/2004 and when their father died on 16/5/2004, the said property devolved on the legal heirs of V.Balasubramani, by virtue of the Will, dtd. 27/1/2004 and after the death of their father, the suit property came to be in possession of the plaintiff and he also applied for patta before the revenue authorities. The second defendant unilaterally had issued patta only for a reduced extent. Hence, the plaintiff has approached the second defendant for correcting the patta. At that point of time, the first defendant had given an objection before the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul and the Revenue Divisional Officer, Dindigul, had dismissed the said objection filed by the first defendant and the first defendant filed an appeal before the District Revenue Officer, which was also dismissed on 9/7/2012. Inspite of the said rejection, the first defendant interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for the relief stated supra.