MURUGAIYAN Vs. M. RAMALAINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the fair and decreetal order, dtd. 6/7/2024 passed in I.A.No.2 of 2023 in O.S.No. 75 of 2021 on the file of the District Munsiff, Pattukkottai.

(2.) The revision petitioner herein is the first defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the above suit. For sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court.

(3.) The respondent as plaintiff filed the above suit in O.S.No.75 of 2021 before the District Munsif Court, Pattukkottai for declaring the sale deed, dtd. 26/11/1981 registered as document No.115 of 1981 as null and void in respect of the suit property and not binding on the plaintiff. Further, to grant the relief of permanent injunction restraining the first defendant and his men from in any way interfering with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit properties and other extents originally belong to one Rajagopal Naidu. The said Rajagopal had right only in 31 Cents out of the total extent of 44 Cents in S.No.65B/5A. The said Rajagopal during his life time had executed a registered Will, dtd. 26/6/1948 in respect of the above 31 Cents. As per the recital of the said Will the Testator had given life estate in favour of his wife Aandal ammal. After the life time of said Aandal Ammal the said properties devolved among their two daughters namely, Krishnammbal and Radharukumani. The said krishnammal is the mother of the plaintiff herein. Subsequently, the said Rajagopal died leaving behind his legal heirs. Soon after his death, the said Will dated, 26/6/1948 came into force. Thereafter, the said Aandal ammal was enjoying the said properties. She died on 24.10.11972 and as per the terms of the Will the suit property devolved equally among Krishnambal and Radharukmani. Whereby, they had become the absolute owners of the suit property. The plaintiff submits that there is a sale deed, dtd. 29/1/1972 as if the said Radharukmani along with her children and Krishnambal along with the plaintiff herein had jointly sold 13 cents out of 31 Cents and the remaining 18 cents was in possession and enjoyment of Radharukmani and Krishnambal. The said Radharukkumani filed a suit for partition in respect of 9 cents in S.No. 65B/5A and other properties by claiming 1/2 share against the Krishnambal and others before Sub Court, Thanjavur. The suit was numbered as O.S.No.45 of 1974. The said suit was decreed on 30/1/1975. Thereafter, a final decree application was filed and the said application was numbered as I.A.No.972 of 1978 and final decree was passed on 21/8/1979. On 19/1/1981, the said Radharukmani sold her 9 cents in S.No.65B/5A to the 1st defendant's mother. Originally, Radharukmani has got title over 9 Cents in S.No.65B/5A, but, due to oversight she had wrongly mentioned the extent of the suit property as 9 cents instead of 18 Cents in O.S.No.45 of 1974 and as per the Judgment passed in the said suit, she got right over 4 1/2 cents only in S.No.65B/5A, however, the plaintiff is not claiming any right in the remaining extent of 4 1/2 cents. The plaintiff submits that the said Radharukmani has no right over the remaining 9 cents ( share of Krishnammal) in the S.No.65B /5A because she had already sold her 9 cents to 1st defendant's mother on 19/1/1981. The said Radharukumani with an intention to grab the suit properties from Krishnambal fabricated a forged sale deed, dtd. 26/12/1981 in favour of the 1st defendant's mother in respect of 6 Cents out of 9 Cents belonging to Krishnambal. The said fact came to the knowledge of the plaintiff only in July, 2019. The property in the sale deed dtd. 26/12/1981 is the suit property, which is a vacant site. The said forged sale deed is void and the same will not bind the plaintiff. After the death of said Krishnambal, the plaintiff is in enjoyment of the said 9 cents and thereafter, he sold 2 cents out of it to one Jayaraman on 18/11/2019. The remaining 6 cents is in the possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is in lawful enjoyment of the suit property without any disturbance. Even though the forged sale deed dtd. 26/12/1981 stands in the name of the 1st defendant, the possession of the suit property is with the plaintiff. On 21/2/2021, the 1st defendant and his men came to the suit property and attempted to tresspass into the same. Hence, the suit.