M. SADAGOPAN Vs. SHANMUGA GOUNDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) JUDGMENT : - 1. The appellants, who are the defendants in the original suit, filed this second appeal against the decree andjudgment dated 17.03.2004 made in A.S.No.18 of 1998 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Arni reversing the decree and judgment dated 26.02.1998 made in O.S.No.616 of 1996 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Arni.

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

(3.) THE appellants filed written statement, in which, it is stated that initially one Periyappu Gounder and Raji Gounder were constituted a joint family and they were owning four acres of land with well, out of which, each got two acres and half share in the common well. The above said Raji Gounder having three sons namely, Ponnuswamy Gounder, Shanmuga Gounder and Bhujabuli Gounder. The above said Periyappu Gounder having only son namely, Munusamy Gounder. The above said Ponnuswamy and the respondent namely, Shanmuga Gounder had sold their shares to the father of the appellants namely, Munusamy Gounder leaving one acre to Bhujabuli Gounder for his share and also they have executed a released deed in favour of Bhujabuli Gounder. The electric service connection is in common (i.e.) in the name of Raji Gounder and Periyappu Gounder. Now, the respondent, Ponnusamy Gounder and his legalheirs have no right over the properties. Bhujabuli Gounder is having three sons namely, Ramu, Mari and Vasu and each entitled to 1/3rd share each. Out of the same, the 2/3rd shares of Ramu and Mari were sold to the appellants. Therefore, the entire four acres of land of Periyappu Gounder and Raji Gounder, except 33 cents (i.e.) the share of Vasu, are in the hands of the appellants. The appellants are absolute owners of the entire property and also entitled to irrigate their properties from the suit well. Further the respondent has released his right over the suit property under the release deed to his brother and hence he is not in possession and enjoyment of any other property or owning the same as on date of the suit. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the suit.