KOTHANDAPANI NAIDU Vs. ABDUL WAHAB SAHIB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED against the judgment and decree given by the Sub Court, Cuddalore in A. S. No. 121 of 1992 in and by which the Sub Court has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the District Munsif, Kallakurichi in O. S. No. 423 of 1984, the plaintiff viz. , one Kothandapani Naidu has filed this second appeal.

(2.) THE said Kothandapani Naidu filed O. S. No. 423 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction against the four defendants viz. , Kulla Karuppan, Marimuthu Ammal, Chinnasamy Chetty and Wahab Sahib with the pleadings that the plaint schedule properties viz. , 8 acres 45 cents covered by S. No. 166, 4 acres 12 cents covered by S. No. 168 at Lakkinayakanpatti Village were purchased in court auction sale as permitted decree holder in pursuance of the decree in Small Cause Suit No. 289 of 1968 obtained against one Poongavanam Ammal and that delivery of the properties was also taken by the said Kothandapani Naidu by filing Execution Petition on 12. 9. 1972 itself and eversince of that date, the plaintiff Kothandapani Naidu alone is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties covered by patta No. 83 issued in his name and also by paying kist and that since the defendants tried to interfere with his enjoyment in the guise of purchase made by the fourth defendant Wahab Sahib, the plaintiff happened to file the said suit.

(3.) HOWEVER, defendants 1 to 3 in the suit did not contest the suit and the fourth defendant Wahab Sahib alone filed written statement stating that it is not correct to say that the plaintiff purchased the suit properties in court auction sale and took delivery of the same and that in fact the fourth defendant and his vendors alone are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties for more than twelve years and that even before the court auction, kalian Chetty had purchased the suit properties from Poongavanam Ammal and then his heirs were enjoying the suit properties and lastly the fourth defendant purchased the suit properties from the heirs of Kalian Chetty and thereby the fourth defendant alone is having title and enjoyment of the suit property and consequently the suit is liable to be dismissed.