T RADHAKRISHNAN Vs. MURUVAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The non-suited plaintiff before the Courts below in a suit for declaration of right, title and interest in the suit property, for consequential injunction and for direction to the defendants to demolish the structures in the suit property, has projected the instant Second Appeal.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, who claims to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, the suit property originally belonged to one Jayammal, Varadammal and others from whom his father Duraisamy Naidu purchased the same as per sale deed dated 20.9.1967. The averment of the plaintiff is that while his father was in possession and enjoyment of the same from the date of purchase, after his demise, he is in possession by constructing a house in a portion in support of which he filed patta and kist receipts. While so, when the defendants, who own a house on the south of the suit property, during March 1998, attempted to trespass in to the same, the plaintiff filed suit O.S. No. 77 of 1998 and obtained an ex parte injunction. The further allegation of the plaintiff is that even thereafter, during December 1998, the defendants trespassed into the suit property and raised walls and hence, he filed suit O.S. No. 240 of 1998 before the District Munsif - cum - Judicial Magistrate No. I, Walajahpet, for declaration of title of the plaintiff, permanent injunction not to proceed any further work and for mandatory injunction to demolish the said walls.

(3.) On the contrary, the defendants, who are mother and daughter respectively, have, in their statement, denied the allegations made by the plaintiff besides stating that the judgment in the earlier suit will operate as res judicata and it is hit by limitation. According to them, they are in possession of the suit property from the year 1976 by virtue of the patta issued in their favour. Apart from this, they also claim to pay taxes in respect of the suit property and for the house constructed by them. The further allegation of the defendants is that the plaintiff has not given the proper description of the property with correct boundaries and measurements. Hence, according to the defendants, the suit is devoid of merits.