GANESAN Vs. SUGANTHA KUNDALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants 1 and 2 are defendants 1 and 2, 3rd appellant is legal heir of the deceased 1st appellant, respondents 1 to 6 are plaintiffs and respondents 7 to 11 are the defendants 3 to 7 in O.S.No.27 of 2014 on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Chidambaram. The respondents 1 to 6 filed the said suit against the appellants 1 and 2 and respondents 7 to 11 for partition and separate possession of the suit property, declaration that settlement deed dtd. 5/5/2014 is not valid and binding on the respondents 1 to 6, permanent injunction restraining the 2nd appellant from any manner encumbering or alienating the suit property in favour of third parties, 3 mandatory injunctions directing the respondents 9 to 11 not to effect any mutation of revenue records, transfer of assessment and transfer of service connection from the 1st appellant in favour of the 2nd appellant. The 1st appellant died pending appeal. The 2nd appellant and respondents 1 to 6 who are the children of the 1st appellant are already on record. One Amsavalli, wife of the deceased 1st appellant was impleaded and brought on record as 3rd appellant in the appeal vide order of this Court dtd. 21/7/2022 made in C.M.P.No.11341/2022 in A.S.No.636/2016.

(2.) Case of the respondents 1 to 6 -

(3.) The 1st appellant filed written statement and 2nd appellant adopted the same. The appellants denied entire allegations made by the respondents 1 to 6 in the plaint, except the relationship between the parties. The mother of the 1st appellant viz., Thiripurathammal purchased the suit land with a hut by deed of sale dtd. 19/4/1936 by registered Document No.378/1936, out of her own funds. The parents of the 1st appellant viz., Thiripurathammal and Sarangapani had 5 sons and 2 daughters. The 1st appellant is 5th son. Thiripurathammal borrowed a sum of Rs.400.00 from her brother Konjithapatham Pillai, in order to construct a house in the suit land. She mortgaged the suit property by registered mortgage deed dtd. 8/9/1947 in favour of her brother Konjithapatham Pillai. Thiripurathammal did not redeem the mortgage. Her brother Konjithapatham Pillai had to pay the money to one Bakkiyalakshmi Ammal, W/o.Krishnamurthy Ayyair and he made over the mortgage deed vide document dtd. 15/3/1955 in favour of Bakkiyalakshmi Ammal. The other children of Thiripurathammal and Sarangapani were not willing to pay the money and discharge the mortgage from the said Bakkiyalakshmi Ammal. At the request of Thiripurathammal, the 1st appellant paid a sum of Rs.850.00 to Bakkiyalakshmi Ammal, W/o.Krishnamurthy Ayyair and the said Bakkyalakshmi Ammal made over the mortgage in favour of the 1st appellant by two made over documents both dtd. 18/12/1961. From that date onwards, the 1st appellant became absolute owner of the suit property. He was paying the property tax. The 1st appellant was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for more than 53 years. He has perfected his title by adverse possession. The other sons and daughters of Thiripurathammal never claimed share in the suit property as they knew very well that suit property is absolute property of the 1st appellant. The 2nd appellant, in the year 2003, renovated the front portion of the house and has put up two shops abutting the street. The allegation that the suit property is joint family property of appellants 1 and 2 and respondents 1 to 6 and 1st appellant has only 1/8th share are not correct. The suit property is absolute property of 1st appellant and settlement deed dtd. 5/2/2014 by the 1st appellant in favour of the 2nd appellant is valid and legal. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties as other sons and daughters of Thiripurathammal and Sarangapani are not made as party to the suit.