R ARUMUGHA MOOPAR Vs. GOVINDA MOOPAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Sub Court, Vridhachalam in A. S. No. 13 of 1991 in and by which the Sub Court has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment and decree of the Trial Court viz. , the District Munsif, Kallakurichi in O. S. No. 498 of 1986, by the defendants Arumugha Moopar and Kuppusamy (defendants 1 and 5) who have failed in both the courts below.

(2.) O. S. NO. 498 of 1986 was filed by the plaintiff viz. , Govinda Moopar against eight defendants including the appellants herein as defendants 1 and 5 for the reliefs of declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property viz. , 15 cents out of 45 cents under S. No. 373/7 as described in the plaint schedule with the following allegations. Originally, the suit property and other properties were owned by the plaintiff's brother Subramania Moopar. The plaintiff purchased the suit property and other properties from the said brother through a registered sale deed dated 20. 7. 1976 for Rs. 3525/=. The said Subramania Moopar was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property continuously and after purchase, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for a long number of years. The defendants being relatives of the plaintiff and particularly the 5th defendant is owning a land on the western side of the suit property and the fourth defendant is owning a land on the southern side of the suit property. Further, the defendants have no manner of right or possession and enjoyment upon the suit property. Due to enmity on account of a dispute over a tree called as "illuppai Tree", the defendants, particularly, defendants 4 and 5 are attempting to trespass upon the suit property. Hence, the plaintiff happened to file the suit.

(3.) DEFENDANTS 1 and 5 alone have filed written statement and contested the suit and all other defendants remained ex parte before the Trial Court as well as the appellate court. The allegations of the written statement of defendants 1 and 5, in brief, are as follows. The plaintiff or his brother Subramania Moopar never owned the suit property or enjoyed the same at any time. The alleged sale deed in favour of the plaintiff dated 20. 7. 1976 is not true and valid. Originally, 22 cents out of 45 cents in S. No. 373/7 was belonging to one Pethammal wife of Subbaraya Padayachi and the mother of the first defendant viz. , Ponnammal purchased the same 22 cents through a registered sale deed dated 22. 6. 1935 and thereafter the first defendant alone is in possession and enjoyment of the said 22 cents. Likewise, the remaining 23 cents out of 45 cents under S. No. 373/7 was belonging to one Thiruvenkada Moopar and father of the fifth defendant viz. , one Oodhaian alias Petha Moopar has purchased the same 23 cents through a registered sale deed dated 5. 8. 1942 and thereafter the fifth defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the said 23 cents. So, the entire 45 cents in S. No. 373/7 has been purchased and enjoyed continuously by defendants 1 and 5 and they have prescribed title by adverse possession also. Therefore, the plaintiff cannot have any title and interest upon the suit property and the suit is liable to be dismissed.