R SUBRAMANIAM Vs. K M GOVINDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second appeal has been filed by the four unsuccessful respondents/defendants before the Sub Court, Cuddalore in A. S. No. 95 of 1993 in and by which the said Principal Sub Judge, Cuddalore has allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 428 of 1991 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Cuddalore viz. , one Govindan and decreed the suit as prayed for.

(2.) THE said Govindan filed O. S. No. 428 of 1991 for the reliefs of declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction against four defendants with the following allegations. The suit property viz. , 6 cents consisting of 2718 sqft, east west 19 $hjp mo on the north, 53 $hjp mo on the south, south north 73 $hjp mo on the west and 76 $hjp mo on the east bounded by the plaintiff's other properties on the west, land of Govindan on the north, Mariamman Kovil on the east and lands of Subramaniam, Radhakrishnan and Pandurangan on the south at Uppalavadi, Sundakadu within the limit of Cuddalore Panchayat Union, originally was belonging to Natesan and Rajagopal through a registered sale deed dated 25. 12. 1970 obtained from one Krishnamurthy and others and thereby the said Natesan and Rajagopal were enjoying the properties including the suit property purchased by them and thereafter the said Natesan and Rajagopal partitioned the properties through a registered partition deed dated 31. 7. 1986 and that in that partition, the suit property and other properties were allotted to the share of Rajagopal and then on the same date, the said Rajagopal and his family members sold the suit property along with other properties through a registered sale deed in favour of the plaintiff herein viz. , Govindan. From the date of purchase, the plaintiff Govindan alone is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. While so, the defendants, without any manner of right upon the suit property and without means and with intention of extracting amounts from the plaintiffs attempted to trespass upon the suit property by saying as if the suit property belongs to Mariamman Temple of the said village. So, the plaintiff happened to file the suit.

(3.) THE suit has been resisted by the defendants with the following allegations. The alleged purchase through sale deed dated 25. 12. 1970 and the alleged partition deed dated 31. 7. 1986 and consequent sale deed in favour of the plaintiff Govindan on the same date are all false and invalid. Neither the plaintiff nor his alleged purchasers were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property at any time. The defendants never attempted to trespass upon the suit property as alleged in the plaint. On the other hand and in fact, the suit property stands classified as "oor natham". The defendants are trustees of Muthumariamman temple at the suit village. The temple festivals are being conducted upon the suit property. The trees standing upon the suit property are being leased out to third parties and the income is being used for the purpose of temple festivals. The suit property is in enjoyment and possession of the defendants alone as trustees of the temple. There is life fence between the suit property and the patta lands of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has no cause of action for filing the suit and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.