MAHALAKSHMI Vs. RAMAKRISHNAN NAIDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are the defendants 2 and 3 in O.S.No.55 of 1999 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Poonamallee. Originally, the suit was filed by nine plaintiffs. Pending suit, the 2nd plaintiff - Doorvasalu Naidu died and as such the plaintiffs 5 to 9 were recorded as the legal heirs of the deceased 2nd plaintiff. Subsequently, the 8th plaintiff -Gajendran also died and hence, plaintiffs 5 to 7 and 9 were recorded as the legal heirs of the deceased 8th plaintiff. The respondents are plaintiffs 1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 in the suit. The deceased one Venkatachalapathy Naidu was the 3rd plaintiff. The said suit was filed for declaration of tile and for recovery of possession of the suit properties and also for mesne profits. Similarly, during pendency of the suit, the sole defendant - Ponnusamy died and as such, the defendants 2 and 3, who are the appellants herein, were brought on record. By decree and judgement, dated 29.10.2011, the trial court decreed the suit thereby declaring the title of the plaintiffs and also for recovery of possession of the suit properties from the defendants. However, so far as the plea for mesne profits was concerned, the trial court negatived the claim made by the plaintiffs. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgement, the defendants 2 and 3 have preferred an appeal in A.S.No.24 of 2012 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee. The learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, by decree and judgement dated 10.02.2015 dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the decree and judgement of the trial court. Challenging the same, the defendants 2 and 3 are now before this court with this second appeal.

(2.) This second appeal has come up today for admission. I have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants and also perused the records carefully.

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs in brief is as follows: - Admittedly, the suit properties were originally owned by one Sri.Nagamma Naidu. Sri.Nagamma Naidu died many decades before intestate leaving behind his only son -Sri.Munusamy Naidu. Sri.Munusamy Naidu inherited the suit properties and enjoyed the same as absolute owner till his death around the year 1953. After the demise of Sri.Munusamy, the plaintiffs, being his legal heirs, have become the absolute owners of the same. The plaintiffs were, in fact, cultivating the suit lands for some years. Since the cultivation was not very profitable, they left the lands barren and went in search of better job outside. Utilizing the absence of the plaintiffs, the 1st defendant, who is the father of the appellants herein, trespassed into the suit properties in the year 1997. When the plaintiffs demanded him to handover the vacant possession, the 1st defendant declined to do so. Therefore, the plaintiffs filed the present suit for the above reliefs. During pendency of the suit, the 1st defendant died and the defendants 2 and 3 were brought on records as his legal representatives.