RAJAGOPAL REDDIAR Vs. RAMASAMI REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in a suit for declaration in respect of immoveable property, recovery of possession and mense profits, on rejection of his defence by the First Appellate Court though accepted by the trial Court has brought this Second Appeal.

(2.) The short facts leading to the case are as follows: A small piece of land measuring to an extent of 7 cents in S.No.18 in Siddhandurai Village originally belonged to one Munusami Reddiar and the same was purchased by another Munisami Reddiar by a sale deed dated 5.6.1931 and from him Durasami Reddiar, father of the plaintiff purchased for a sale consideration of Rs.1000/-, Ex.A1 dated 16.3.1939. Out of 7 cents, two cents were acquired by the Government for the purpose of laying road and the remaining 5 cents were sub divided as S.No.18/2; that the said Duraisami Reddiar died intestate in 1967; that he had two sons by name Veeraraghava Reddiar and Krishnamurthy Reddiar; that the property came to their hands; that Krishnamurthy Reddiar died in 1980 leaving behind his wife Dhamaianthi and two sons Balaji and Murali, aged 9 years and 7 years respectively; that Veeraraghava Reddiar and the heirs of Krishnamurthy Reddiar executed the release deed dated 13.9.1986 in respect of the property in question, thus, the plaintiff became entitled to the property in full and he has been enjoying the same. While so on 1.9.1986 the defendants trespassed into the property and got into possession. Under such circumstances, there arose a necessity for filing a suit for declaration and posession and for other reliefs.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendant stating that the property never belonged to Munusami Reddiar nor it was purchased by another Munusami Reddiar and hence Ex.A1 could not convey title to the father of the plaintiff and the property originally belonged to the defendants ancestorally and they have been enjoying the same all along and there was a family partition among the brothers in the year 1965 and leaving two cents which were taken by the Government, the remaining 5 cents was enjoyed by the defendants, each having 2 cents; that the 2nd defendant made a oral sale of his 2 cents to the first defendant, thus the first defendant became entitled to 5 cents totally and thus, patta was also granted in his favour and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same all along and thus, it was a false claim made by the plaintiff which has got to be rejected.