KANDASAMY Vs. M PALANISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order of the District Munsif, Mettur, dated 31-03-2003 in I. A. No. 208 of 2003 in O. S. No. 48 of 1997 allowing the petition filed under Or. 1 R. 10 (2) C. P. C. The defendants 2 and 3 are the Revision Petitioners.

(2.) THE brief facts necessitated for disposal of this revision petition could briefly be stated thus: the suit property relates to a house with the vacant site thereon in Amani Surapalli Village, Ist Ward in East Alamara Theru, Jalakandapuram Sub-Registration District. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property has been purchased by the plaintiff and his brother Madaiyya Chettiar by a sale deed dated 27-4-1953. From the date of purchase both of them were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The brother of the plaintiff Madaiyya Chettiar died about 10 years ago. Even after his death, the plaintiff continued to be in possession of the suit property as absolute owner. House tax assessment has been levied in the name of the plaintiff and he has been regularly paying the house tax to the Local Body. The defendants' house is situated on the West of the suit property. The defendants have no manner of right, title or interest in the suit property. While so, on 2-2-1997 the defendants have made attempts to trespass into the suit property and encroach upon the portion of the same, which was prevented by the plaintiff with the help of neighbours. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

(3.) DENYING the absolute right of the plaintiff in the suit property, the defendants have filed a written statement contending that the deceased Madaiyya Chettiar left his wife, son and daughter as his legal heirs. They have not been added as necessary parties to the suit and hence, the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The defendants have also contended that the plaintiff's vendor Kullichetty is also the vendor of the defendant's father Sankara Chetty in the year 1943. In both the sale deeds, a common wall has been incorporated. From the date of purchase, family of the defendants have been enjoying the wall without any let or hindrance. The plaintiff demanded the properties of the defendants for a nominal sum, which was denied by them. Hence, aggrieved over the same, the plaintiff has filed the vexatious suit.