P MUTHUKARUPPAN Vs. PALANIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant, in a suit for declaration and consequential permanent injunction in respect of the suit properties, who suffered a decree in AS No.109 of 1990, wherein the judgment of the trial court was modified, has filed this second appeal.

(2.) The following facts are noticed in the pleadings of the parties: The suit schedule immovable properties originally belonged to one P.Muthukaruppan, the father of the plaintiff, who purchased from another Muthukaruppan by a sale deed dated 23.6.1951. The father of the plaintiff executed a mortgage in respect of item Nos.1 to 5 in favour of the plaintiff and her first husband Veera Adaickan. The father of the plaintiff executed a sale deed under Ex.A.1 on 22.1.1952 in respect of all the 14 items in favour of the plaintiff and her first husband Veera Adaickan, and thus, the plaintiff and her first husband took possession of the property and they were enjoying the same also. The said Veera Adiackan had no other heirs except the plaintiff. Thus, on his death, all the properties were devolved upon the plaintiff. The defendant is the close relative of the plaintiff. On the death of her first husband, the plaintiff married one Muthu, son of Chinnakaruppan and he has also left 10 years before. The plaintiff reposed confidence on the defendant and entrusted all the original documents and records pertaining to the properties with the defendant. Taking advantage of the situation, the defendant claimed title to the property. Under the stated circumstances, the plaintiff has issued notice on 21.4.1983, which resulted in a reply on 5.5.1983 from the defendant containing false allegations, and hence, there arose a necessity for filing the suit.

(3.) The suit was defended by the appellant/defendant stating that it is true that the plaintiff's father was the original owner of all the items of the property; that it is not correct to state that the said Muthukaruppan executed mortgage deed in favour of the plaintiff and her first husband nor he executed any sale deed in respect of all the 14 items of the property on 22.1.1952 in favour of the plaintiff and her first husband; that the plaintiff has suppressed the fact that she had one brother by name Karuppiah; that the defendant is the grant son of one Adaikappan, the brother of Muthukaruppan; that on 23.7.52 when the defendant was a minor, the said Muthukaruppan executed a settlement deed in favour of the defendant and his junior paternal uncle and from that time onwards, they have been in enjoyment of the properties and on his death, the defendant was the only heir to succeed the properties, and thus, the defendant, who got the possession of the property, has been in enjoyment of the same and has been paying tax all along, and thus, he was entitled to the property, and hence, the suit was to be dismissed.