MANNAZHAGAN Vs. SELVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 127 of 2008 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Villupuram are the appellants in this second appeal. Though the Plaintiff's have obtained a declaratory decree and judgment before the trial court, it was reversed by the first appellate Court at the instance of the respondent herein, which resulted in the filing of the present second appeal.

(2.) IT is the contention of the plaintiffs in the plaint that the suit property and some other properties originally belonged to their father Panduranga Gounder and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same for a long time. According to the plaintiffs, their father has executed two registered settlement deeds dated 23.09.2005, marked as Exs. A1 and A2 respectively, and by virtue of such settlement deed, they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The Plaintiffs also obtained patta and adangal in their name and are also paying the kist to the authorities concerned in respect of the suit property in their name. While so, the defendant, who is a stranger to the suit property and who has no right, interest or title, has attempted to trespass into the suit property, which necessitated them to file the suit.

(3.) BEFORE the trial court, on behalf of plaintiffs, Exs. A1 to A10 have been marked. The Plaintiffs examined themselves as PW1 and PW3 respectively besides one Anbalagan was examined as PW2. On behalf of the defendant, Exs. B1 to B7 were marked and the defendant examined himself as DW1 besides three other witnesses were examined as DWs 2 to 4. The trial court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant/respondent herein preferred first appeal contending that the trial court did not properly appreciate the documentary evidence marked on behalf of the defendant. The first appellate Court, taking into consideration Ex. A10, a mortgage deed dated 09.08.1975 executed by Pandurangan, father of the plaintiffs, held that such a mortgage deed, though registered, is a self -serving document and it was executed with a third party, therefore, it will not bind the defendant in any manner. Further, the first appellate Court examined the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and concluded that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the suit property. On the other hand, it is the defendant who is in possession of the suit property and therefore, the first appellate Court reversed the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court.