MUNUSAMY GOUNDER Vs. SADASIVAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree of the Additional Subordinate Court , Chengleput in A. S. No. 11 of 1993 dated 14. 10. 1993, the defendants in O. S. No. 6 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif Court , Madurantakam, have filed this second appeal.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff-in-brief is as follows : a. THE suit properties originally belonged to one govindasamy Gounder, who is the father-in-law of the plaintiff. He had been in possession and enjoyment of the same for over many years. All the revenue records were standing in the name of the said Govindasamy Gounder. b. On various dates during the year 1960, the said govindasamy Gounder purchased the items 3 to 7 referred to in the plaint schedule from the first defendant by way of oral purchase and he obtained items 1 and 2 from is mother Periyamukkal Muniammal. THEreafter, the said Govindasamy gounder had executed a settlement deed in favour of his wife Ambujammal on 17. 11. 1961. THE said Ambujammal enjoyed that property as an absolute owner and during the course of her enjoyment she mortgaged the property to one Ramaiah and one Devendiran under the registered mortgage deeds dated 18. 8. 1975 and 5. 6. 1980 respectively. Later on, the said mortgage was discharged. THEreafter, the said Ambujammal sold the suit properties to the plaintiff for a valuable consideration on 8. 2. 1983 by executing a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. THEreafter, the plaintiff took possession of the suit properties and enjoyed the same till the filing of the suit. All the revenue records stands in the name of the plaintiff. During the course of enjoyment, the plaintiff put up a motor pumpset in the suit properties. For that he obtained electric connection from the electricity board in his name. THE plaintiff and his predecessors have perfected title to the suit properties by virtue of long and continuous possession and enjoyment beyond the statutory period. Since the first defendant with an ulterior motive interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff without any basis or right, the plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendants. Since the defendants attempted to trespass into the land of the plaintiff on 16. 12. 1997, the plaintiff approached the Civil Court for declaration and injunction against the defendants 1 and 2.

(3.) IN such circumstances, the lower appellate Court endorsed the view taken by the trial Court. Therefore, the lower appellate court negatived the relief sought for by the appellant/plaintiff with regard to declaration. However, the lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that the appellant/plaintiff as well as the vendors of the plaintiff were in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and therefore, the lower appellate Court granted injunction against the respondents/defendants.