KASIAPPA GOUNDER Vs. KARUPPAN KARUPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE Civil Revision Petitions are preferred against the order of the Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore dated 04. 02. 2003 in I. A. Nos. 1588 and 1517 of 2002 in O. S. No. 1641 of 1994, allowing the Application in I. A. No. 1517 of 2002 to deposit the Mortgage amount and allowing the Amendment in I. A. No. 1588 of 2002. The First Defendant is the Revision Petitioner.

(2.) CASE of the Respondents / Plaintiffs is that the Suit Property and other properties comprising the total extent of 8. 88 acres originally belonged to Chinnavadukan, who is the great Grandfather of the Plaintiffs. He own the said Properties under Inam patta No. 3 dated 01. 10. 1910. After the death of Chinnavadukan, the Property devolved upon his four sons. Chinna Sadayandi, who is the Grandfather of the Plaintiffs had got 2. 22 acres, out of which, the Plaintiffs Father Karuppan had acquired 74 cents. Plaintiffs Father Karuppan was the absolute owner of the said 74 cents, which the suit property herein and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. After the death of Karuppan, the Plaintiffs have acquired the Suit Property 74 cents and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same till 1985. They were living in a small hut in the said Property. Since the Plaintiffs could not cultivate the lands due to lack of irrigation facilities, eking out their livelihood, the Plaintiffs were forced to leave their lands seeking for employment elsewhere. Taking advantage of the absence of the Plaintiffs, the Defendants have illegally taken possession of the properties. The Plaintiffs have been obstructed from entering their own lands. The Defendants have also tampered the Revenue Records, which are not binding on the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs have issued legal notice on 16. 07. 1993 to the First Defendant. Having received the Notice, the First Defendant had sent a reply through his counsel claiming that the property originally belonged to one Mangammal as per the Sale Deed dated 24. 04. 1954. The said Mangammal was not the owner of the suit property at any point of time. The claim of the Defendants that the First Defendant purchased the Suit Property under Sale Deed dated 11. 04. 1979 is incorrect. Hence, the Plaintiffs have filed the Suit for delivery of vacant possession and for costs.

(3.) DENYING the allegations in the Plaint, the First Defendant has filed the Written Statement adopted by the Second Defendant. In their Written Statement, the Defendants have alleged that the Plaintiffs Father Karuppan for himself and onbehalf of the Plaintiffs have executed a Registered Mortgage Deed dated 28. 04. 1954 in favour of one Mangammal wherein they have agreed to redeem the Mortgage within six years, failing which the Mortgage Deed to be treated as the Sale Deed. Since the Mortgage was not redeemed within the period of six years, the Father of the Plaintiff has lost the interest. The Second Defendant is the only legal heir of the said Mangammal. The Second Defendant has sold the suit property to the First Defendant under a Sale Deed dated 09. 04. 1979 for a sum of Rs. 2,000/ -. Eversince the date of purchase, the First Defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the Suit Properties. In recognition of his enjoyment of the Suit Properties, Revenue Authorities have also effected mutation of the records. The First Defendant is paying the land Revenue. The First Defendant has also perfected Title to the Suit Property by adverse possession. The Plaintiffs cannot have any valid claim in the Suit Property and hence they are not entitled for the relief of possession sought for in the plaint.