BHAGAVATHY PILLAI Vs. SAVARIMUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs are the appellants. They instituted a suit against the defendants for eviction and for removal of buildings and delivery of vacant possession of the property and for costs. The plaintiffs belong to a tarwad, which became divided on 2 -8 -1907, under which the Karnavan and Velayudhan Narayanan got the entire property. The brand of the plaintiffs, who were the Seshakars of the said Velayudhan Narayanan, divided the property in 1926. The property devolved on the first plaintiff and her mother and on the death of her mother, the first plaintiff became entitled to the property. There was a partition between the first plaintiff and her children on 17 -12 - 1953 and in the said partition the property set out in the schedule, comprising about 8 cents, fell to the share of the plaintiffs. Having traced in this manner the title to the said property in the aforesaid manner the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants had put up small buildings with the permission of the karnavan and that they had to be removed and the site restored to the plaintiffs. The property is comprised in S. No. 6610 and the total area is 83 cents. The entire area is said to be a garden, in a portion of which viz. 8 cents therein some buildings have been put up by the defendants.

(2.) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 filed a written statement, in which they have stated that S. No. 6610 became their property prior to M. E. 1020 corresponding roughly to 1845. According to them their ancestors were in possession. Even so the basis that the plaintiffs had any right to the property, their case was that the plaintiffs had lost their title prior to 1120 M.E. corresponding to approximately 1945. They, therefore, contended that the suit was barred by limitation. They challenged also the rights of the plaintiffs to effect a division of the said property. It was alleged by them that the property had been allotted to the branch of one Govindan Udayan. Defendants 3 to 8 are the sons of defendants 1 and 2. Defendants 9 to 13 were tenants at will of defendants 1 and 2. Thus, the written statement of the defendants 1 and 2 is practically the foundation on which the whole defence is rested.

(3.) THE learned Judge thereafter went into the question as to whether the defendants or their predecessors -in -title were in possession of the property right from M.E. 1020. On this aspect, he pointed out that defendants 1 and 2 had not stated as to how they got the property prior to 1020. He then referred to the evidence of the second defendant as D.W. 3 in which it was stated that the suit property was in the possession of the defendants under an othi and kuzhikanom right of the year 1020 M.E. No particulars of the othi deed of 1020 were forthcoming and D.W. 3 had clearly admitted that he did not know whether his father had given evidence before the Settlement Authorities claiming title or possession in respect of the suit property under any mortgage deed.