CHOCKALINGA VETTAR Vs. DHANUSHKODI KONAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above Second Appeal has been preferred by the defendant in the suit filed by one Dhanushkodi Konar which has been filed against the appellant herein in O.S.No.33 of 1982 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai, praying for a declaration of his title to the suit property and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the same and the said suit having been decreed by the trial Court as per its judgment and decree dated 11.10.1982, against which the appellant filed an Appeal Suit No.44 of 1983 on the file of the Court of District Judge, Pudukottai and the said appeal also having come to be dismissed thereby confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court as per the judgment dated 26.9.1984, aggrieved, the defendant has come forward to file the above Second Appeal on grounds such as

(2.) The plaintiff's case before the trial Court is that the suit property was purchased by him from one Savarimuthu Udayar by means of a registered sale deed dated 23.1.1968, who in turn had purchased the same from one Dhanushkodi Chettiar by a registered sale deed dated 24.1 0.1963, who had taken the suit property in a Court auction sale in Small Causes Suit No.280 of 1953 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Pudukottai and the properties had been delivered on 7.3.l959 ; that the court delivery interrupts the possession of the judgment debtors and the title of one Ramasamy Chettiar who was a party to the suit; that the said person purchased the suit property from the defendant's stepbrothers on 20.11.1943 and the defendant sold his share on 5.7.1943 measuring 1.75 acres in the suit Survey number along with stepbrothers to one Keeri Vellayan; that the defendant transferred patta for the whole extent with the help of the village officials, which would show that the plaintiff was in enjoyment of the suit property paying the kist and the patta for the suit land originally stood in patta No.83 and later in patta No.457; that now the patta is changed in the name of the defendant in patta No.239 and under this pretext he claims title to himself much less adverse to the plaintiff; that he has already sold the suit properties to third parties in the year 194 3 and is bound by the sale deed and hence the suit for the reliefs extracted supra.

(3.) In the written statement filed, the defendant besides generally denying the truth and veracity of the plaint averments and pointing the character of the sale referred to in para 5 of the plaint would also submit that the suit property solely belongs to the defendant having been allotted to him in the partition; that the first wife's sons of his father along with his paternal uncles acted against the interest of the defendant and they wrongly executed the documents assuming that they were entitled to the same; that when the alienees were apprised of the want of title and enjoyment by the paternal uncles and the stepbrothers of this defendant they did not exercise the option of the ownership or enjoyment over the suit property which continues to be in possession and enjoyment of the defendant all along; that in any event the alienations relied on by the plaintiff in para 5 of the plaint would not clothe him or his predecessors in title with any right or title or enjoyment over the property.