GURRAPPA NAIDU Vs. MUNUSAMY NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated June 26, 2020 passed in A.S. No.4 of 2018 by the 'learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri' [henceforth 'First Appellate Court' for the sake of brevity and convenience] confirming the Judgment and Decree dated February 13, 2017 passed in O.S. No.23 of 2013 by the 'learned District Munsif, Krishnagiri' [henceforth 'Trial Court' for the sake of brevity and convenience].

(2.) For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

(3.) One Appaiyan @ Munusamy and Pappammal are Husband and Wife. They have four sons, namely Munusamy (Plaintiff), Gurrappa Naidu (1st Defendant), Krishnan and Govindasamy. Appaiyan @ Munusamy passed away 60 years ago and his wife Pappammal passed away 30 years ago from the date of Plaint (Date of Plaint is January 26, 2013). After the demise of Appaiyan @ Munusamy and Pappammal, the aforesaid four sons entered into a Registered Partition Deed dated July 5, 1982 (registered on July 12, 1982 as Document No. 1161 of 1982) in respect of their ancestral and joint family properties. In the said Partition Deed, an extent of Acre 1.26 in Survey No.663 was allotted to the Plaintiff and an extent of Acre 0.88 was allotted to the 1st Defendant. According to the Plaintiff, at the time Partition, though extents were specified in the aforesaid Partition Deed, no measurement was made and lands were divided on the basis of boundaries. On and after the said Partition, the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant were enjoying the lands allotted to them within the specific four boundaries mentioned in the said Partition Deed. Considering the possession and enjoyment, the lands of the Plaintiff and the First Defendant were sub-divided as Survey Nos.663/1 and 663/2 respectively under the 'Up-Dating Registry Scheme' ['UDR Scheme' for short]. Further, Patta was granted to the Plaintiff for an extent of Acre 1.36 in Survey No.663/1 and to the 1st Defendant for an extent of Acre 0.68 in Survey No.663/2 under UDR Scheme. The 1st Defendant was very well aware of the above facts and never raised any objection nor claimed any right over the land allotted to the Plaintiff. There is a well-formed ridge dividing the lands of Plaintiff and First Defendant. The Suit Property is Acre 1.36 of land in Survey No.663/1. Further, as per the Partition Deed dated July 5, 1982 the 1st Defendant was permitted to use the east to west Cart Track in the Suit Property which proceeds from North-West Corner of the Suit Property and reaches First Defendant's property. The Plaintiff has not obstructed the 1st Defendant for his access as per the terms of the Partition Deed.