DEVAKI Vs. KUPPU AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved over the judgment of the Principal District Judge, Cuddalore, made in A.S.No.16 of 1992, affirming the judgment of the trial Court in a suit for permanent injunction, the defendant has brought forth this second appeal.

(2.) The following facts are noticed in the pleadings of the parties: The property situated in T.S.Nos.2225 and 2229 at Vilvarayanatham, Cuddalore, belonged to the Government. They were converted into house sites by the Government and assigned to several persons including the plaintiff. The assignment was made in favour of the plaintiff under a deed dated 12.3.1973, and plot No.25 was granted to her. At the time of assignment, numbers were not actually given to the plots. The plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.2,031/- to the Government in that regard and put up a thatched house in the property. She has been residing there. She has been in possession and enjoyment of the property for more than 17 years, and thus, she prescribed absolute title to the same. The assessment of the property stands in the name of the plaintiff, and she has been paying the tax. The husband of the defendant by name Kumarasamy gave an application to the Collector stating that the plaintiff was enjoying plot No.37 while she was assigned a different plot. An enquiry was conducted, wherein it was found that the plaintiff has been in possession of the property for more than 17 years. However, Kumarasamy managed to get a sale deed from Munusamy, who was allotted plot No.37. The said sale deed is not true and valid. The defendant gave troubles to the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, which necessitated her to file the suit.

(3.) The defendant contested the suit by stating that the alleged assignment in favour of the plaintiff is not true and valid; that the boundaries given in the plaint refer only to plot No.37 and not plot No.25; that plot No.37 was originally assigned to one Munusamy, and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same; that he entered into an agreement of sale with the defendant on 30.3.1977, and he sold the same to the defendant on 2.4.1990; that on application, the assessment was changed in favour of the defendant on 15.5.1990; that having got assignment of plot No.25, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim title or possession in respect of the suit property, and hence, the suit was to be dismissed.