K DURAI Vs. PADMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.269 of 2006 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Mayiladuthurai is the appellant herein. The defendants in the suit are the respondents herein. (The second defendant Mr.Balasubramanian died during the pendency of the first appeal but, his legal representatives were not brought on record). The trial Court by decree and judgment dated 21.06.2010 dismissed the suit. As against the same, the appellant filed an appeal in A.S.No.120 of 2010 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai. By decree and judgment dated 20.11.2014, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the decree and judgment of the trial Court. Challenging the same, the appellant is before this Court with this second appeal.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is as follows: - The suit property and few more properties were originally owned by one Mr.Venkatarama Iyer. Mr.Venkatarama Iyer executed a registered Will under Ex.A.1 dated 21.09.1938. Subsequently, Mr.Venkatarama Iyer died and therefore, the Will (Ex.A.1) came into force. As per the Will (Ex.A.1), the suit property was bequeathed in favour of his son Mr.Seshaiyer for his life and after his demise, the property should go to Mr.Balasubramanian s/o Mr.Seshaiyer, the second defendant herein absolutely. Accordingly, on the demise of his father Mr.Balasubramanian, the second defendant in the suit became absolute owner of the suit property. The second defendant in turn, sold away the suit property, by means of registered sale deed, dated 10.03.2003 (Ex.A.2), in favour of one Mr.Annamalai. From Mr.Annamalai, the plaintiff purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 25.06.2005 (Ex.A.3) for valuable consideration.

(3.) According to the plaintiff, he has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property right from the year 2005, as absolute owner. The defendants have got no right whatsoever. Since, the defendants 1 and 3 have attempted to disturb the possession of the plaintiff, he was forced to file the present suit, for declaration of title and also for permanent inunction to restrain the defendants from in any manner interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.