A. MUTHU Vs. P. ANGAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants who are the plaintiffs in the original suit preferred this Second Appeal against the decree and judgment dated 05.10.2005 made in A.S. No. 41 of 2005 on the file of Subordinate Court, Devakottai, wherein allowed the appeal in part and modifying the decree and judgment dated 11.04.2005 passed in O.S. No. 204 of 2004 on the file of Additional District Munsif Court, Karaikudi.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, the plaintiffs in the original suit in O.S. No. 204 of 2004 referred as appellants and the defendants in the above said suit referred as respondents hereafter.

(3.) BRIEFLY the case of the appellants/plaintiffs is that 'A' schedule suit property originally belonged to one Karuppiah Konar and he died intestate in the year 1957 and his wife namely Meyyarammal also died. After their death, their only son namely Adiyakonar entitled to the suit property and he died in the year 1979 and his wife namely Kaliyammal also died in the year 2001. The appellants are sons and Karuppayee and Muthammal are daughters of Adiyakonar and Kaliyammal. Both daughters are living separately for 30 years and 20 years respectively after their marriage. After death of Adiyakonar and his wife, the appellants are in possession. The appellants' sister not claimed any right in the suit A schedule (i.e.) entire property and therefore, the appellants are entitled to the 'A' schedule suit property. The 2nd appellant, namely Srinivasan put up a thatched shed and also terrace house in 'A' schedule suit property and living in the above said house. The 5th respondent/Tahsildar issued patta No. 1020 for S. No. 224/21 an extent of one acre 8 cents in the name of Adiyakonar. The appellants paid tax receipts from 1368 pasali. It is also averred in the plaint that even during the life time of Adiyakonar, on 26.12.1951, he sold a portion of property under a registered sale deed measuring East -West 85 kaladi, North -South 120 kaladi (i.e.) about 15 cents to his sister namely Adhammai. The above said Adhammai put up a thatched shed and later converted as tiled house in the above said portion. Later, the appellants came to know that the respondents 1 to 3 who are legal heirs of Adhammai gave false information and obtained UDR patta in their name also in the year 2001 and hence, the appellants objected the same on 21.01.2001 and also on 05.03.2001 before the 5th respondent/Tahsildar. But, the 5th respondent/Tahsildar wrongly issued joint patta in the name of the appellants and also 1st respondent on 10.10.2000 in D.K. 8A 257/1410. As per the above said UDR patta, the entire 'A' schedule suit property (i.e.,) S. No. 224/21 sub divided as 224/21A, 224/21B, 224/21C, 224/21D and 224/21E and issued patta for 224/21 A for an extent of nine acres in the name of appellants, 224/21B for an extent of one and half acres in the name of 1st respondent and the plaintiffs jointly, 224/21C for an extent of 9 acres in the name of 1st respondent alone, S. No. 224/21D for an extent of 3 acres in the name of appellants and S. No. 224/21E for an extent of 21 acres in the name of 1st respondent. The above said order passed by 5th respondent/Tahsildar without giving any opportunity to the appellants and hence, the above said order is illegal and also it is not binding on the appellants. According to the appellants, the respondents had unlawfully encroached a portion of 'A' schedule property an extent of 31 + cents in S. No. 224/21B, C and E which is shown as 'B' schedule property. Hence, the suit.