K GNANAPRAKASOM NADAR MUTHU Vs. AYYAPPAN ASARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been brought forth by the plaintiff in a suit for partition and for demarcation of the property, aggrieved over the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram, made in A.S.No.41 of 1992 wherein the judgment of dismissal by the trial Court was affirmed.

(2.) The following facts are noticed in the pleadings of the parties: The plaintiff, who was originally the sole appellant before this Court, sought for the relief of partition in respect of his 14 cents of land described in the plaint Schedule and for demarcation of the said area of land and to put up surrounding boundaries and survey stones, alleging that he purchased 10 cents from one Raghava Asari and 4 cents from one Thavasi Asari, both on 3.7.1975, by two registered sale deeds; that he was in possession of the said 14 cents; that there is no demarcating boundary for the said area; that in view of the same, there was dispute between the plaintiff and the defendants, and thus, it became necessary to partition the said area, and demarcation should be done in that regard.

(3.) The defendants 3 to 5 remained ex-parte before the trial Court. The suit was resisted by the defendants 1 and 2 stating that the survey numbers and boundaries for the plaint Schedule property were not correct; that the alleged sale deeds were not genuine; that the vendors of the plaintiff under the sale deed dated 3.7.1975 were entitled to only 3 cents and not 4 cents as alleged by the plaintiff; that the other brothers of the plaintiff's vendors sold their 2 cents to the first defendant, and hence, the plaintiff obtained 3 cents and the first defendant obtained 2 cents, out of five cents; that one Kumaraswamy Asari sold 7 cents to the first defendant under a sale deed dated 1 .11.1975, and thus, the first defendant obtained right, title and possession for an extent of 9 cents; that his property has been demarcated; that further, one Lakshmikutty sold 4 cents to the second defendant under a sale deed dated 19.9.1969, and thus, the second defendant was in possession and enjoyment of 4 cents, which was also separately demarcated; that the vendors of the plaintiffs and the defendants were in possession and enjoyment of lesser area; that the plaintiff was entitled to 13 cents only and not 14 cents as alleged by him; that the plaint Schedule property was lying in three different plots with well defined boundaries; that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief, and hence, the suit was to be dismissed.