RAMASWAMY GOUNDER Vs. NANJAPPA GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant whose plea in a suit for declaration of title in respect of the immovable property set out in the plaint and consequential permanent injunction on rejection of the same by both the courts below have brought forth this second appeal.

(2.) The short facts are noticed in the pleadings of the parties: The suit properties are originally belonged to one Ammasaiakkal, wife of Ramasamy Gounder of Edayapalayam village. The said Ammasaiakkal is the only daughter of Palanakkal and Pongia Gounder. The said Ammasaiakkal's mother Palanakkal was in possession and enjoyment of the properties till her death. She died about 20 years back. After her death, Ammasaiakkal has inherited the properties. The patta for the suit properties stands in the name of Ammasaiakkal and she is paying kist to the suit properties. On 5.2.1990 the plaintiff has purchased the properties from the said Ammasaiakkal under a registered sale deed. The defendant is owning lands on the North of the suit properties and the East West fence divides the suit property and the defendant's lands. The defendant had made an illegal attempt to prevent the plaintiff's enjoyment of the suit property and threatened the plaintiff that he should sell the lands to him. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendant by stating that Pongia Gounder had three wives, namely, Ramakkal, Palanakkal and Karuppayal and each wife had one daughter. Ammasaiakkal is the daughter of Palanakkal. Ramakkal had a daughter by name Marakkal. Karuppayal had a daughter, by name Ramakkal. Pongia Gounder died long back and his properties devolved upon the three daughters and each having 1/3rd right. It is not correct to state that the properties had belonged to Ammasaiakkal alone. The plaintiff had purchased Ammasaiakkal's share and later the defendant had purchased the 1/3rd share of Ramakkal from her sons and daughters by a sale deed dated 7.3.1990. Hence, the defendant is entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit properties, and the suit was to be dismissed.