NAGAPPAN Vs. KANNIAH REDDIYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S.No.506 of 2001 which was on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court Vellore, is the appellant herein.

(2.) O.S.No.506 of 2001 had been filed by the respondents seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with peaceful possession of the suit properties. There were five items of suit properties and they were situated in S.No.412 in Athiyur Village, Vellore, measuring to an extent of 8.21 acres namely, Item No.1 comprised 1.36 1/2 acres with 1/6 share in the well. Item No.2 comprised another 1.36 1/2 acres with 1/6 share in the well. Item No.3 also comprised 1.36 1/2 acres with 1/6 share in the well. Item No.4 comprised 1.00 acres and item No.5 comprised 2.73 acres with 2/6 share in the well. The plaintiffs were spouses. They claimed that the 1st plaintiff had purchased item Nos. 1 and 2 properties by way of two registered sale deeds dtd. 2/2/1960 and 29/3/1960. The 2nd plaintiff had purchased item Nos.3, 4 and 5 by way of registered sale deeds dtd. 17/11/1961, 19/8/1963 and 20/8/1965 respectively. Claiming that the defendant was interfering with possession the suit had been filed for permanent injunction.

(3.) The defendant filed a written statement disputing the execution, registration and also the validity of the sale deeds. The defendant claimed his grandfather Munusamy Gounder had six sons, viz., Patchaiyappa Gounder, Govindasamy Gounder, Appasamy Gounder, Kanna Gounder, Ramasamy Gounder and Perumal Gounder. The defendant was the son of Patchaiyappa Gounder. He stated that the grandfather had purchased the total extent of 8.21 acres in S.No.412 by a registered sale deed dtd. 13/3/1944, but also stated that the sale deed was lost. He stated that there was a family arrangement among the sons of Munusamy Gounder and that they all took a share in the aforementioned lands. He further stated that the father of the defendant was also allotted a particular share. He claimed that he also purchased further land and was in possession of 3.10 acres of punja land in S.No.412. He therefore disputed that the title of the plaintiffs and their assertion that they were in possession.