SENDAMARAI KANNAN Vs. VINAYAKAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is filed by the defendants. The facts which are not in dispute are as follows: The property belonged to one Mannadha Pillai , whose sons were Balakrishnan and Muthukrishnan. After the death of Mannadha Pillai , they sold it to Veeraswami on 12. 5. 1892, who is turn sold it to his daughter Kanakavalli , who happened to be the wife of Mannadha Pillai , on 15. 10. 1901. After Kanakavalli's death, her legal heirswere her daughters Thayammal , Ponnukannu and Swarnathammal. The last daughter died issueless. The property thus belonged to Thayammal and Ponnukannu. Thayammal's grand daughters are Alamelu and Narayani , while Ponnukannu's daughters are Kuppammal and Janaki Ammal. Janaki Ammal sold her l/4th share to Nachammal alias Andal on 5. 2. 1968. There was a suit for partition in o. S. No. 125 of 1969 filed by Alamelu Ammal and Narayani Ammal against Kuppammal and Janaki Ammal. It was decreed andthe eastern half was allotted to Kuppammal and Janaki Ammal. Kuppammal's daughter Thulasi Ammal sold her l/4th share to the plaintiff under Ex. A-4, dated 8. 11. 1975 and Andal Amma l sold her 1/4th shareto the plaintiff under Ex. A-3, dated 12. 2. 1975. Thus, the plaintiff, claiming the eastern half share which was allotted to Kuppammal and Janaki Ammal in the partition suit, filed the present suit for declaration of his title and for delivery of possession. The first defendant is the son of Balakrishna n ,son of Mannadha Pillai ,already referred to. The second-defendant is the son of the first defendant. They resisted the suit contending that they are entitled to the properties absolutely, on two counts. First, they claimed that the sale deed executed by Balakrishnan and Muthukrishnan infavour of Veerasamy was sham and nominal and it was never given effect to. According to them, possession continued with the vendors always. Secondly, it is contended that the defendants have perfected title to the property by adverse possession as the property was with them for more than hundred years.

(2.) THE courts below have negatived both the contentions and granted a decree in favour of the plaintiff.

(3.) IT is agreed that the appellants will have six months time, provided they file an affidavit in this court undertaking to vacate the premises on the expiry of six months. The appellants are, therefore, directed to file an affidavit in this Court on or before 11. 2. 1992 undertaking to vacate the premises on or before 31. 7. 1992. Without driving the plaintiff to execution proceedings. If the affidavit of undertaking is filed, the plaintiff shall not execute the decree till 31. 7. 1992. If the affidavit is not filed, it is open to the plaintiff to execute the decree immediately. .