PACHIAPPAN AND ORS. Vs. DEIVANAI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs in O.S. No. 24 of 2006 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Dharmapuri are the appellants herein. The respondents are the defendants in the suit. The said suit was filed for declaration of title and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from in any manner interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and also to declare that the sale deed dated 29.08.2005 is null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs. The trial court, by decree and judgment dated 12.12.2011 dismissed the suit. As against the same, the plaintiffs filed an appeal before the learned Principal District Judge, Dharmapuri. The said appeal was dismissed by the lower appellate court by decree and judgment dated 05.04.2014. As against the same, the appellants are before this Court with this Second Appeal.

(2.) THIS Second Appeal has come up before me today for admission. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellants and I have also perused the records carefully.

(3.) THE first defendant filed a written statement wherein he has stated that it is not true that Mr. Gowran and Mr. Chinnapaiyan continued to be the joint family members. As a matter of fact, according to the first defendant, 70 years before, there was oral partition between Mr. Gowran and Mr. Chinnapaiyan and as per the said oral partition, the respective sharers enjoying the property allotted in the said partition. Thus, after the above said partition, there was no joint family status between Chinnapaiyan and Gowran. It is not correct to state that in the year 1977, there was oral partition and until then, the joint family continued. So far as the suit property is concerned, it was purchased out of the earnings of Boothalan and Gowran on 07.09.1957. After the demise of Gowran, the defendants 2 and 3, who are his sons, had been enjoying the suit property. While so, the first defendant purchased the suit property from the 2nd and 3rd defendants on 29.08.05. Thus, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as an absolute owner. The 1st plaintiff has managed to obtain UDR patta in his name by suppressing the facts and now, he makes claim based on the same, it is contended.