TUTICORIN DIOCESAN TRUST ASSOCIATION Vs. THAVAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs suit is one for declaration and for permanent injunction. THE plaintiff claims that the suit property originally belonged to one Alwar, who had settled the property in favour of his grand sons, Alwar and Perumal under Ex.Al, settlement deed dated 5.8.1929 and as the beneficiaries were minors at that time, their mother Pechikudumbachi was appointed as a guardian and she was entitled to enjoy the property till the minors attain the majority and on attaining majority, she has to hand over the property to the beneficiaries. Perumal, one of the beneficiaries, sold this property to Mahalingam under Ex.A2, sale deed dated 4.8.1954, who in turn sold the same to one Subramanian under Ex.A3, sale deed dated 4.9.1959 and Subramainan, in turn, sold the property to Alwar and Perumal, the original beneficiaries under Ex.A4, sale deed dated 26.9.1969. Thus, the property had once again come to the hands of the original owners, viz. Alwar and Perumal and they were enjoying the property and sold the same to the plaintiff under Ex.A5, sale deed dated 1.3.1982. THE plaintiff took possession of the suit property and had reared certain trees and also stacked hay. Thus, the plaintiff and his predecessors in titles have been in possession and enjoyment of the property for over 60 years and they have also perfected title by prescription.

(2.) THE 1st defendant filed a written statement, which was adopted by the defendants 2 and 3, wherein, they have denied the sale in favour of the plaintiff and also the right of his predecessors in title. But, on the other hand, the defendants claim that the suit property belonged to Valliammal, wife of Subramanian and she has sold the same to the first defendant under Ex.Bl, sale deed dated 17.8.1933 and since then, they have been enjoying the property. In 2983, when the third defendant was away from the suit village, the plaintiff stacked hay and cut and removed certain trees. THE third defendant issued a notice to the plaintiff, to which, a reply was sent to him. It is stated that the plaintiff was never in possession of the property.

(3.) HEARD the learned advocate for the appellants and the respondents.