NATESA PADAYACHI Vs. NARAYANASAMY PADAYACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is challenged herein is the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore made in AS No.46 of 1992, wherein the judgment of the trial court, in a suit for declaration, permanent injunction and in alternative recovery of possession, was confirmed.

(2.) The short facts for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: An extent of 17 cents situated on the North of Cuddalore Vridhachalam road originally belonged to Chakrapani, who sold the property to one Bakthavatchalu Naidu of Cuddalore, who, in turn, sold the same to the defendant in 1960. The plaintiff was owning the property in Survey No.643/7 on the immediate east and north of the suit property. On the North East of the suit property, at a distance of 100 yards, the plaintiff was owning an extent of 17 cents in Survey No.643/15. The defendant suggested to the plaintiff that the plaintiff can take the suit property in exchange for the plaintiff's property in Survey No.643/15, to which suggestion, the plaintiff acceded to. Accordingly, the property was exchanged and the plaintiff was put in possession of the suit property and from that time, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. He has been paying kist also. On seeing the value of the property has arisen, the defendant was attempting to interfere with the possession of the suit property. Hence, there arose a necessity for filing the suit for the above reliefs.

(3.) The suit was contented by the defendant stating that the property belonged to the defendant by way of a purchase under registered sale deed dated 5.7.1960 and from the time of purchase, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the same, continuously; that there was no exchange of property as contended by the plaintiff's side and it was utter falsehood and the suit was filed to grab the property of the defendant, and hence, the suit was to be dismissed.