A RAJAGOPAL Vs. MUTHULAKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment and decree dated 31. 3. 1993 passed in A. S. No. 230 of 1992 by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore reversing the judgment and decree dated 12. 12. 1991 made in O. S. No. 825 of 1989 by the District Munsif, Cuddalore, the first defendant has filed the above second appeal.

(2.) THE averments made in the plaint are as follows: a. THE suit property mentioned in'b' schedule originally belonged to Govindasamy Naidu and his two brothers. In an oral partition,'b'schedule property was allotted to the said govindasamy Naidu and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same till his death. After the death of Govindasamy, his only son Ramamurthy, who is the husband of the plaintiff, was in possession and enjoyment or the same. THE said ramamurtny also died three years prior to the date of filing of the suit leaving behind his wife and five children. After the death of Ramamurthy, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. THE suit property is a vacant site and in a portion of that property, there is a hut, in which the plaintiff has been residing from the date of her marriage, with the knowledge of the defendants and adverse to the defendants for more than a statutory period. THE second defendant is the son of Venkatachala Naidu, who was a cousin of Govindasamy Naidu. THE first defendant attempted to trespass into the suit property in the third week of March 1989 alleging that he had purchased the suit property from the second defendant. However, such attempt was successfully thwarted. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit to declare possessory title to the suit property and for permanent injunction.

(3.) PER contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the alleged sale deed has been executed by Raju naidu in favour of the first defendant only after the death of Ramamurthy naidu, who is the husband of the plaintiff, in order to take away the property and to defeat the claim of the plaintiff.