A.P. KRISHNAVENI AMMAL Vs. PAPIAH REDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendants before the First Appellate Court have filed this Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2011 passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruvallur, in A.S. No. 29 of 2000 wherein and by which the judgment and decree dated 24.7.2000 passed by the learned District Munsif, Tiruvallur, in O.S. No. 971 of 1989 filed for the relief of declaration of title and permanent injunction, was confirmed.

(2.) The plaintiff / sole respondent herein filed O.S. No. 971 of 1989 for declaration of title to the suit items and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit items.

(3.) A brief narration of facts necessary for appreciating the contentions raised herein may be set out. According to the plaintiff, he is in possession of the suit items, viz., 0.23 Cents in S.No. 556/1B/1C/2B, measuring 0.15 Cents of Dry land in S.No. 525/2C/2B and an extent of 0.72 Cents of Dry land in S.No. 521/2B, comprised in Patta No. 422, in Uthukottai Village, Uthukottai Sub District and Uthukottai Taluk, Tiruvallur District, as full owner by virtue of a registered release deed dated 26.12.1970 from his father, by paying kist from 1971 onwards. It is stated that the suit items are now comprised in Patta No. 335 from 1987 onwards under U.D.R. Scheme and that the plaintiff and the defendants had effected acknowledgments of their respective share of properties in writing in Uthukottai Village during 1971 and 1977. In addition to that, the plaintiff and the defendants have also offered their respective properties as security before the Sub-Court, Tiruvallur, on 14.02.1981 for withdrawal of compensation amounts in L.A.O.P. 29 of 1979 in which the suit items were described as item V. It is also averred by the plaintiff that the defendants had acknowledged the plaintiff's right and title to the suit items in the said security bond and, therefore, they are estopped from challenging his right in the suit items. The further case of the plaintiff is that he has been cultivating groundnut crop every year in the suit items. According to the plaintiff, the defendants have no manner of any right or interest or claim in the suit items and since the first defendant attempted to forcibly dispossess the plaintiff on 03.12.1989, he filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the defendants.