KANNA PILLAI Vs. OYAMALLI ALIAS MALLIKA AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) What is challenged herein is the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Villupuram made in AS No.4 of 1990, wherein the judgment of the trial court in a suit for declaration and for consequential permanent injunction was affirmed.

(2.) The plaintiff sought the relief in respect of a piece of land, measuring 1-1/2 cents along with a tamarind tree shown as B schedule to the plaint, a part of 6 cents situated in S.No.622/3 which is described as A schedule. According to the plaintiff, the property measuring 6 cents originally belonged to his father one Govindasamy Pillai and his three brothers, and thus, each was entitled to 1-1/2 cents. Originally patta was granted. The old patta number is 319 and the new patta number is 780. The defendants have no right or interest over the suit property. While so, the defendants were adumbrating that out of 6 cents in S.No.622/3, the husband of the first defendant and the father of the defendants 2 to 5 one Thiruvenkatam was entitled to 4 cents and the rest 2 cents was belonged to the plaintiff and their pankalis. When the plaintiff made an attempt to take the fruits in the tamarind tree, it was being objected to by the defendants, and there arose a necessity for the plaintiff to file the suit.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendants-inter-alia stating that the claim made by the plaintiff was false and the suit A schedule property measuring 6 cents never belonged to the plaintiff's family; that neither B schedule nor A schedule has been in possession of the plaintiff or his family members, but the property has also been in the possession of the defendants and prior to them with Thiruvenkadam, the husband of the first defendant; that the property actually lies within patta No.320 and not 319 as contended by the plaintiff; that the defendants have been paying kist; that originally, a suit was filed in OS No.562 of 1980 and an appeal was preferred in AS No.148 of 1982, wherein it has been found that the plaintiff was not entitled to, but the same was suppressed in the suit, and hence, the suit was to be dismissed.