PALANIAMMAL Vs. K. M. NATARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant.

(2.) The plaintiff filed O.S.No.202 of 1995 before the District Munsif Court, Nilakottai for declaration of title and permanent injunction or in the alternative for a prayer for recovery of possession with regard to the suit A and B schedule properties. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiff filed A.S.No.53 of 2000 on the file of the Additional District Court (FTC), Dindigul. The learned District Judge was pleased to partly allowed the appeal and granted a decree for 29 3/4 cents to the southern portion of the suit schedule property. As against the same, the present second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.

(3.) The plaintiff had contended that the suit schedule property originally belonged to one Kuppan Samban and after the life time of Kuppan Samban, his three sons namely Raman, Alagumalai and Muthukaruppan have partitioned the properties among themselves. The plaintiff had further contended that the suit A schedule property was allotted in favour of Raman and B schedule property was allotted to Alagumalai. She further contended that the brothers Raman and Alagumalai had executed a registered othi deed under Exhibits A2 and A4 in favour of one Chellathayammal. Thereafter, they have redeemed the same in the year 1971 which is reflected in the endorsement made in Exhibits A2 and A4. The plaintiff further contended that the brothers Raman and Alagumalai had sold the suit schedule property in favour of the plaintiff under Exhibits A1 and A3 both dtd. 24/3/1970. According to the plaintiff, she has taken possession of the suit schedule property and had changed the patta in her name. The plaintiff further contended that she was forced to be away from the town when her son got implicated in a murder case. During the said period, the defendant and his vendor have created some documents encumbering the suit schedule property and have created some revenue records in their favour. In the year 1994, the plaintiff had approached the revenue authorities for rectifying the revenue records, but there was no response. In the year 1995, the defendant attempted to prevent the plaintiff from enjoying the suit schedule property. Since the defendant in his written statement has claimed that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property from 15/3/1991, the plaintiff had sought an alternative prayer for recovery of possession from the defendant.