ALAMELU AMMAL Vs. KRISHNA NATTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED against the judgment rendered by the Sub Judge, thiruvannamalai in A. S. No. 34 of 1993 in and by which the Sub Judge dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff Alamelu Ammal in O. S. No. 311 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif, Thiruvannamalai and allowed the cross appeal by upholding the prescription of title by the defendants, the appellant/plaintiff Alamelu Ammal has filed the second appeal.

(2.) THE suit in O. S. No. 311 of 1985 was filed by Alamelu Ammal against the four defendants for the reliefs of declaration of title and permanent injunction in respect of the suit properties viz. , 6 acres 66 cents covered by S. No. 312/1 and 84 cents covered by S. No. 312/2a at Sathanur Village, Changam Taluk with the allegations that the plaintiff purchased the suit properties on 29. 8. 1963 from defendants 1 to 3 through a registered sale deed for Rs. 3000/= and defendants 1 to 3 executed the said sale deed in favour of the plaintiff for the purpose of discharging the debts and pressing need thereof that were incurred by the parents of the defendants as well as the first defendant as joint family manager and that ever since of that purchase, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and cultivating the suit properties through lease in favour of third parties and that the defendants have left the suit village for their livelihood and that after retirement of the plaintiff's husband from the Police Department, the plaintiff and her husband came to the suit village and are cultivating the suit properties through lessees and that while so, the defendants, without any manner of right are attempting to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff upon the suit properties and that is why the plaintiff happened to file the suit for the relief of declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant contended that as per the new Limitation Act, the persons who claim adverse possession should prove it by cogent evidence inasmuch as there is document of title in favour of the plaintiff under Ex. A1 and defendants 1 to 3 are parties for themselves and on behalf of the fourth defendant and it was also contended that even for argument sake if it is construed that the plaintiff has not proved all the debts referred to in Ex. A1, it does not mean that the title is not passed on to the plaintiff and that the remedy for the defendants is only to claim the amount of undischarged debts from the plaintiff and it is not open for the defendants to question the validity of the sale deed as if debts were not discharged in accordance with the recital in Ex. A1 and that the plea of coercion and undue influence relating to Ex. A1 should be proved only by the defendants. He also contended that the evidence available for the defendants is not to the extent of establishing Ex. A1 as voidable document based upon the alleged coercion and undue influence. He also contended that the evidence of the first defendant as DW1 itself goes to show that the said sale deed was obtained by the plaintiff by saying that it is a mortgage deed towards loan amount of Rs. 1000/= obtained by the first defendant from the plaintiff and thereby it goes without saying that defendants 1 to 3 were consenting parties for execution of Ex. A1 sale deed thinking that it was a mortgage deed. Therefore, he further contended that if really the defendants were not consenting parties to Ex. A1 it is always open for all the defendants or any of the defendants to dispute or challenge the said sale deed marked as ex. A1 either within three years from the date of the execution of the sale deed or three years from the date of becoming major.