VELUCHAMY Vs. SEENIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Second Appeal is directed against the concurrent judgment and decree made in A.S.No. Of 2006, dtd. 28/1/2008, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Srivilliputhur against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.17 of 2002, dtd. 8/7/2005, on the file of Principal District Munsif, Srivilliputhur.

(2.) The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant. He filed the suit for declaration of prescriptive title and for consequential injunction restraining the defendants from interferring with his possession over the suit property. He also sought for declaration that the sale deed executed by D1 to D3 in favour of fourth defendant, dtd. 30/4/2000 was null and void and for consequential injunction restraining the fifth defendant from transferring the patta in favour of the fourth defendant or any other person. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the findings rendered by the trial Court was affirmed by the FirstAppellate Court. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, theplaintiff is before this Court by filing this Second Appeal.

(3.) According to the Plaintiff, the suit property belongs to his paternal grand-father Pandiya Thevar. After the death of Pandiya Thevar, the total extent of land available to the family in the suit survey number was deivided into three portions and allotted to his sons namely, Subramania Thevar, Chithra Thevar and Rangasamy Thevar. The Plaintiff is the son of Chithra Devar and defendants 1 to 3 are the sons of Rangasamy Thevar. The plaintiff claimed that each of the sons of Pandiya Thevar were allotted 41 cents in suit survey number. Due to the ill-health of defendants 1 to 3's father Rangasamy Thevar, 41 cents of land allotted to his share was in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff even during the life-time of Rangasamy Thevar. At the time of death of Rangasamy Thevar, the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.3000.00 to the defendants 1 to 3 to met the funeral expenses and as consideration for the same, the defendants 1 to 3, gave up their right and conveyed the suit property in favour of the plaintiff in the year 1981 itself. Thus the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property in the year 1981 openly and continuously by mutating the revenue records.