SENTHILVEL Vs. RAJAMANIKAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal has been filed as against the judgement and decree passed in A.S.No.9 of 2012 on the file of the Sub Court, Dharapuram dtd. 28/10/2013, confirming the judgement and decree dtd. 19/1/2012 passed in O.S.No.231 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram. In the trial Court, the plaintiffs have filed the suit as against the defendant and the same was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and as against the trial Court's verdict, the defendant has filed the First Appeal and the same was also dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant has preferred this Second Appeal.

(2.) (i). The plaint schedule properties originally belonged to one Maruthan through final decree proceedings passed in I.A.No.873 of 1937 in O.S.No.43 of 1937 dtd. 23/3/1938 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Dharapuram. The plaintiffs are the sons of the said Maruthan. As per the final decree proceedings in the above said suit, the said Maruthan had got Patta in his name and he also paid "kist" to the above said property. The defendant is none other than the son of the second defendant namely Bhagavathi Nadar in the above said final decree proceedings. As per the final decree proceedings in the above said suit, the plaintiffs' father is entitled to 1/4th share over the properties and the remaining share belongs to father of the defendant mentioned in the final decree proceedings. The suit Survey Number is Ka.Sa.No.917/1.

(3.) (i). The case of the defendant is that, the suit is false and frivolous. He stoutly denied the plaint averments regarding the possession of the plaintiffs and existence of Well in the suit in S.No.917/2. In fact, there was a suit filed on the file of District Munsif Court, Dharapuram in O.S.No.43 of 1937 and the same was decreed. After the suit, the said Maruthan had left from the suit village in or about 50 years ago. For more than 50 years, the plaintiffs were not in the suit village and they migrated from the suit property. In or about 30 years ago, the defendant had purchased share of his family members ie., from this father and brother, thereby, the defendant is the absolute owner of the properties of his family. Thereafter, during the year 1971 and 1972, the defendant created fence over the entire property including the plaintiffs property and he has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment over the entire property.