RAMAN Vs. ALAMELU AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, who lost his case before the Courts below, is the appellant herein.

(2.) The following facts are noticed in the pleadings of the parties: The plaint Schedule mentioned immovable property originally belonged to one Kandasamy Udayar. He died 42 years prior to the filing of the suit, leaving behind him his wife Muthammal and sons Krishnasamy and Raman, the plaintiff in the suit, as his heirs, and they have been in enjoyment of the property. Muthammal was enjoying the southern side, while the sons were enjoying the northern side. She executed a sale deed in respect of plots 1 and 2 on 16.4.1966 in favour of the plaintiff and his brother Krishnasamy. The plaintiff and his brother Krishnasamy entered into an oral partition, by which they were enjoying the respective shares. Krishnasamy executed a sale deed in respect of a part of the northern plot, enjoyed by him, on 25.2.1976 in favour of the defendant. Taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiff, the defendant has fixed a door frame on the southern part in plot 2, which belonged to the plaintiff, and the same was objected to by the plaintiff. Under such circumstances, there arose a necessity for filing the instant suit for the said reliefs.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendant stating that the plaint plan was defective and apart from the description of the property; that it is not correct to state that the plaintiff was entitled to the plots situated on the south and west by way of a sale deed executed in his favour; that the defendant has been in enjoyment of the property, which was originally enjoyed by the predecessor-in-title; that actually the plots on the south of the plaintiff's property were in the actual possession of the defendant; that an Advocate Commissioner appointed by the Court, has also noted the same; that the alleged sale deed executed by Muthammal was only created, and it could not convey any right, title or interest to the plaintiff over the suit property; that the said Muthammal did not enjoy any right to execute Ex.A2 sale deed; that the plaintiff or his brother cannot claim any right over the property through Ex.A2; that the plaintiff's father Kandasamy Udayar had his first wife, through whom his daughters Nagammal and Chellammal were born; that the mother of the plaintiff Muthammal was not the legally wedded wife of Kandasamy, and thus, the plaintiff was not entitled to the reliefs asked for.