PALANIAPPAN Vs. MAYANDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants 1 to 5 and 7 are the appellants. The first respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction. The suit was decreed by the Trial Court and the first appeal filed by the appellants was also dismissed and hence, the second appeal.

(2.) According to the first respondent/plaintiff, the suit property is a natham land adjacent to his house. It was averred in the plaint that the suit property had been in possession and enjoyment of the first respondent's family for a quiet long time and in recognition of their possession, the Government granted patta in the name of the first respondent's brother, Sathan in the year 1976. It was also further averred that there was a oral partition in the family of first respondent eight years prior to the filing of the suit and whereunder the suit property was allotted to the share of the first respondent. Therefore, it was the case of the first respondent that he had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property treating it as a backyard of his house right from the oral partition. It was further averred in the plaint that the appellants/defendants, who owned property on the southern side of the suit property, tried to put up a fence on the northern extremity of the suit property and tried to annex the suit property along with their property and hence, the first respondent was constrained to file a suit for declaration and injunction.

(3.) The appellants herein filed a written statement denying the claim of the first respondent that the suit property had been in possession and enjoyment of their family for a long time and in recognition of their possession, patta was granted in favour of the first respondent's brother. The appellants in the written statement claimed title and possession over the suit property. It was further averred by the appellants that 3 1/2 cents in the suit property was purchased by the first appellant Palaniappan under Ex.B.1, dtd. 20/9/1960 and the remaining three cents was purchased by him under Ex.B.2 dtd. 25/1/1967. It was also averred by the appellants that in the sale deed executed in favour of one Sathaiah by Udaiyal Aarichi, dtd. 19/3/1983, while giving description of property covered under the sale deed, the suit property was shown to be the property of the first appellant.