ASHIYA BI Vs. ASHIYA BI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiff before the Courts below is the appellant in this Second Appeal.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that the defendants 1 and 2, on the basis of the Varthamana letter executed by them on 10.9.1974, allowed her to reside in suit property for a sum of Rs.1500/ -. Thereafter, on receiving a sum of Rs.3000/ -, the defendants 1 to 3 agreed to sell the property within a period of three years by executed a deed on 16.11.1978 and also handed over possession of the property to the plaintiff. While so, during the end of 1979, the defendants received a sum of Rs.1500/ - agreeing to get the sale deed and that they had not claimed the sum of Rs.950/ -. The defendants also agreed to receive only a sum of Rs.550/ - further agreeing to return back the amount and also executed a blank pronote. It is stated that since the entire sale amount was given by the defendants for the above said transactions, they are liable to pay the amount and that she is in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property for more than a statutory period and prescribed title by adverse possession. As such, according to the plaintiff, she is entitled to the benefits under Section 53(A) of the Transfer of Property Act. Hence, she filed the suit for the relief of specific performance and for directing the defendants to execute the sale deed or alternative relief of declaration of title by way of prescription by adverse possession and also for the relief of permanent injunction not to alienate the suit property.

(3.) TRIAL Court / learned Principal District Munsif, Salem, on consideration of the evidence adduced and the materials available thereon, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove Exs. A.1 and A.2 unregistered deeds of sale agreement, dismissed O.S. No. 1999 of 1996 holding as time barred by judgment dated 01.11.2004. On appeal, the First Appellate Court / learned Additional Sub -Judge, Salem, after careful consideration of the facts and law, dismissed the appeal confirming the finding of the trial Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the plaintiff has come up with this Appeal.