THASI NAIDU VELLIAH NAIDU ANGAMMAL PERUMAL NAGARAJAN SELVARAJ Vs. R VASANTHA NAGAMMAL MINOR LAKSHMI REP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.8.1991 rendered in A.S.No.101 of 1991 by the Court of District Judge, Dindigul, thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 9.2.1990 made in O.S.No.751 of 1984 by the Court of Additional District Munsif, Dindigul.

(2.) Tracing the history of the above second appeal coming to be preferred, what comes to be known is that the appellants are defendants 1, 2 and 6 to 9 in the suit filed by the first respondent/plaintiff for a declaration that the suit properties belong to the plaintiff and also for possession, further claiming damages on averments such as that the suit properties and the land measuring 24 cents on the northern side of the suit properties originally belonged to one Marayammal W/o Karuppa Naicker purchased under a sale deed dated 7.1.1902 and she was in possession and enjoyment of the same till her lifetime; that Karuppa Naicker had four brothers and the defendants are the legal heirs of Perumal Naicker, who is the last brother of Karuppa Naicker; that Munusamy is the son of Karuppa Naicker and Bangarammal is the wife of Munusamy Naidu; that Marayyan, Ramadass and Gopalakrishnan are the legal heirs of Munisamy Naidu and they were enjoying the suit properties and 24 cents of land on the northern side of the suit properties for the past 25 years having got the same by an oral partition and the same was managed by Rangasamy who is the husband of the third defendant; that on 17.5.1974, a panchayat was held in respect of handing over possession of the suit properties by Rangasamy and as per the decision of the panchayat, after executing a sale deed in respect of 21 cents of land in his favour, Rangasamy had handed over possession of the suit properties in favour of Marayan Vagaiyara; that by a sale deed dated 14.3.1984, the said Marayan Vagaiyara sold the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.l2,100/- and ever since, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by paying kist; that the defendants sent a notice dated 29 .3.1984 contending that the suit properties, besides the other properties, belonged to Karuppa Naicker and his brothers and that the suit properties were allotted to the share of Perumal Naicker in a partition and after the death of Perumal Naicker, the defendants, as legal heirs of Perumal Naicker, have become entitled to the suit properties and that the plaintiff is not entitled to the suit properties; that the plaintiff sent a reply dated 6.4.1984. On such averments, the plaintiff has come forward to file the above suit praying for the relief extracted supra.

(3.) After filing the suit, the plaintiff, alleging that the defendants trespassed into the suit properties and cultivated groundnut to an extent of 30 cents by watering from the well belonging to them which is on the northern side of the suit properties which would yield 4 bags, claims Rs.400/- as temporary damages and also claims permanent damages @ Rs.100/- per year till handing over possession of the suit properties to the plaintiff.