PICHAI PILLAI KONAR Vs. KRISHNASWAMI KONAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is filed by the Plaintiff in O.S.No.282 of 1975 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Vridhachalam, challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Chidambaram in A.S.No.39 of 1977.

(2.) The facts of the case are briefly as follows:

(3.) The suit property of an extent of 1 acre and 64 cents of agricultural land and other properties originally belonged to one Sepperumal Konar alias Kulla Konar. He died in the year 1951 leaving behind him his wife Alamelu and three daughters, viz., Kuppayee the mother of the Appellant, Vembayee and Parvathi-ammal (the first defendant in the suit). To discharge the debt payable by Kulla Konar, some of his properties were sold by Alamelu and her three daughters by means of the sale deeds marked as Exs. B.1 and B.2. Vembayee, one of the daughters of Kulla Konar, died intestate in the year 1953. The case of the appellant is that Parvathiammal was married in a well-to-do- family at Irusalakuppam village whereas Kuppayee, the mother of the appellant, was married to one Duraikannu Konar who comes of a poor family. The case of the appellant as set out in the plaint is that Parvathiammal reliinquished her right in the family properties and that Alamelu Ammal was in possession and enjoyment of the remaining properties left by Kulla Konar in her own right and became the absolute owner according to the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. She executed a settlement deed Ex.A.l in respect of the suit properties in favour of the appellant when she was a minor represented by her guardian father Duraikannu Konar and possession of the suit property was also delivered by the said Alamelu Ammal in favour of the appellant. The patta for the suit property was also transferred to the name of the appellant and the appellant had been in enjoyment, of the suit property ever since the date of Ex.A.l viz., 22.2.1961, by paying kist. By absolute enjoyment of well over the statutory period the appellant had also prescribed title to the suit property by adverse possession. The respondents 1 and 2 and Parvathiammal attempted to trespass into the suit property by setting up title in themselves and hence the appellant came forward with the suit O.S.No.282 of 1975 for declaration and injunction or in the alternative for possession of the suit property. The case of the first respondent (second defendant) and the predecessor-in-title of the third respondent (first defendant) as set out in the written statement are as follows: