KANNADASAN Vs. CHINNA KOLANDAIAMMAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant in the original suit is the appellant in the second appeal. The plaintiff in the original suit is the first respondent in the second appeal. Defendants 2 and 3 in the original suit are the respondents 2 and 3 in this second appeal. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in accordance with their rankings in the original suit and at appropriate places, their ranks in the second appeal also will be mentioned when the Court feels necessary.

(2.) O.S.No.635 of 1987 came to be filed by the plaintiff against the defendants 1 to 3 [appellant and respondents 2 and 3] seeking the following reliefs:-

(3.) The suit property is described to be 19 cents of land bounded on the North by defendants' land, South by the remaining land belonging to the plaintiff, East by land of Radhakrishnan and West by land belonging to Subramanian Vagayara. The said property is said to be part of re-survey No.59/1 in Melmalayanur village, Gingee Taluk, Villupuram District. The said reliefs were sought for based on the contention that an extent of 4.12 acres comprised in Survey No.59/1, originally belonged to Rajaram Reddiar and Lakshmi Narayana Reddiar and in the oral partition that took place 20 or 25 years prior to the filing of the suit, Rajaram Reddiar was allotted 1.87 acres on the Northern part and the remaining extent of 2.25 acres on the South was allotted to Lakshmi Narayana Reddiar; that the 2.25 acres, which fell to the share of Lakshmi Narayana Reddiar, was purchased by the plaintiff under a sale deed dated 21.05.1985; that while executing the sale deed, the extent of the property conveyed was, by mistake, noted as 2.06 acres instead of 2.25 acres and that though the sale deed recited an extent of 2.06 acres as the property purchased by the plaintiff, she got possession of the entire extent of 2.25 acres. The further contention raised by the plaintiff is that there is a ridge dividing the southern portion purchased by the plaintiff having an extent of 2.25 acres and the northern portion having an extent of 1.87 acres, which fell to the share of Rajaram Reddiar; that the defendants, who purchased the share of Rajaram Reddiar, besides making an attempt to measure the property by submitting a petition to the surveyor for taking the excess extent of 19 cents allotted to the vendor of the plaintiff, were also making attempts to obliterate the ridge dividing the two portions and that the same forced the plaintiff to file the suit for establishing her title and for protecting her possession by seeking the reliefs of declaration and injunction. The plaintiff also incorporated a plea in the plaint that even if the case of the plaintiff that her vendor was allotted 2.25 acres in the partition could not be accepted to be correct, since she was in possession and enjoyment of 2.25 acres which included the 19 cents of suit property, she had perfected title by adverse possession in respect of the suit property.