THANGAMMAL Vs. RAMASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful defendants in both the Courts below are the appellants in this second appeal. The plaintiff, V. Ramasamy has filed a suit for declaration and possession in respect of the suit property apart from seeking mesne profits. According to the plaintiff, he is the only son of Venkatrama Gounder who had pre-deceased wife Karuppakkal and Venkatrama gounder died on 12-1-1984. In a partition deed between Venkatrama Gounder and his brothers dated 5-10-1951, the suit properties were allotted to Venkatrama Gounder. The plaintiff by virtue of his birth is entitled for half share and after the death of venkatrama Gounder, the plaintiff has inherited his another half share and therefore, he has become entitled to the entire suit property.

(2.) IT is the further case of the plaintiff that after the death of his mother, taking advantage of the fact that his father venkatrama Gounder lived alone, the defendants started living with him and fabricated documents. One among the documents is dated 8-12-1972 stated to have been entered into an agreement by the Venkatrama gounder in favour of the defendants for selling the property for a sum of Rs. 2000/ -. There was another mortgage deed dated 18-7-1973 created stating as if Venkatrama gounder has borrowed a sum of Rs. 1500/-from the first defendant by creating a mortgage of the suit property. According to the plaintiff, these documents are not valid. The plaintiff also would state that Venkatrama gounder had no right to create any encumbrance over the property and it is not binding upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff also would further state that the first defendant filed a suit for an injunction in O. S. No. 803 of 1985 against the plaintiff and it was only after filing of the said suit, the plaintiff himself came to know about the agreement. The defendants having entered into possession refused to give possession to the plaintiff which necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit for declaration and possession.

(3.) IN the written statement filed by the defendants, it is slated that the present suit itself has been filed by the plaintiff only as a counter-blast for the two suits tiled by the first defendant in O. S. No. 803 of 1985 and 1524 of 1988. The first defendant filed the suit in O. S. No. 803/ 19s5 for injunction and o. S. No. i 524/. 1988 under a Mortgage Deed executed by Venkatrama Gourider. The defendants also denied that the suit property is an ancestral property. According to the defendants. Venkatrama Gounder is the absolute owner of the property. There is no relationship between the first defendant and venkatrama Gounder. It is only at the instance of Venkatrama Gounder, the first plaintiff entered into an agreement to purchase the property. It is only after receiving the entire amount the said Venkatrama gounder has executed the Mortgage Deed. When it is a fact that Venkatrama Gounder and the plaintiff living together, it cannot be sold without the knowledge of the plaintiff. It is from the date of execution of the document by Venkatrama Gounder for the past eighteen years the defendants have been in uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the property and in any event, they have acquired title by adverse possession. The plaintiff having personally known about the sale agreement executed by his father has filed the present suit after his death. The plaintiff is estopped from denying the right of defendants.