K. NARAYANASWAMY PILLAI Vs. KANNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, who is the defendant in the original suit filed this second appeal against the Judgment and decree dated 12.10.2004 made in A.S.No.57 of 1998, on the file of Subordinate Court, Arni, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.08.1988 made in O.S.No.569 of 1993, on the file of Principal District Munsif Court, Arni.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, the defendant in the original suit is referred as appellant and the plaintiff in the original suit is referred as respondent hereafter.

(3.) THE appellant, who is the defendant in the suitfiled a written statement and denied the contentions of the respondent and it is also stated that the appellant's husband Munusamy Pillai and his brother Rajagopal Pillai were jointly enjoyed the properties. In the year 1947, both of them divided the properties in which, the suit properties were allotted to the share of Munusamy Pillai. After the death of Munusamy Pillai, the suit properties were enjoyed by the appellant's mother. After the death of appellant's mother, the suit properties are in the possession and enjoyment of the appellant. According to the appellant, after the above said partition, the respondent or her husband or father -in -law were never enjoyed the suit properties. The respondent residing only in the house allotted to the share of Rajagopal. It is also denied that the alleged trespass by the appellant on 25.12.1992. Therefore, the appellant prayed for dismissal of the above said suit. The appellant also filed an additional written statement in which, it is stated that after the above said alleged partition in the year 1976, both Rajagopal Pillai and his brother Munusamy Pillai orally exchanged their properties. In the year 1981, for obtaining loan for the respondent's husband, under an unregistered document/agreement confirmed the above said exchange. Therefore, from 1976 onwards, the suit properties are in possession of the appellant and not entered into the suit property in the year 1992 as contended by the respondent. The appellant has paid electricity charges, house tax and also obtained patta, on the basis of possession. Therefore, the respondent is not entitled to any relief.