LALITHA Vs. SELVARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CASE of the plaintiffs is that the first plaintiff is the daughter of second plaintiff and the defendant is the son of the second plaintiff. The suit property was originally a house site. The TADCO, under a scheme, has built up superstructure to the persons belonging to Schedule castes. The house site given by the said Corporation to the first plaintiff was sold by her to the defendant. The site, which was given to the second plaintiff / father is the suit property. The defendant was also allotted another house site. In the house site given to the second plaintiff, the second plaintiff has put up a compound wall, apart from effecting some changes. The house site given to the second plaintiff is adjacent to the house site given to the defendant. The second plaintiff has been enjoying the suit property from 1978 onwards and thereafter, on settlement, he has given the said house site to the first plaintiff and both the plaintiffs are living in the suit property. Due to the reason that the second plaintiff has executed a gift deed in favour of the first plaintiff, the defendant has developed enmity and he has been attempting to remove them from the suit property. Therefore, the suit for permanent injunction was filed.

(2.) IT is the defendant's case that he has obtained three house sites from three vendors by way of sale in the same Survey No. 31 on 23. 01. 1974, 11. 02. 1974 and 21. 03. 1974 respectively and all the three sites, totally measuring 6 cents, have been in possession of the defendant. According to the defendant, the first plaintiff was living along with her husband from 1970 separately and the second plaintiff, who is the father of the defendant, has been living separately along with his third wife. In spite of that, the relationship between the defendant and the plaintiffs were cordial. In the year 1976-77, when the Government came forward to put up construction to the persons, who are having house sites through TADCO, the Corporation has accepted to put up the construction to the defendant only in respect of one house site. However, the defendant, in order to get construction for other two properties also, one in the name of the first plaintiff and another in the name of the second plaintiff, executed a gift settlement deed in respect of the site purchased by him from one Elumalai, in favour of the first plaintiff to show as if the first plaintiff is the owner, to whom the Corporation has also built up the superstructure. Likewise, the Corporation has also built up another two constructions, one for the second plaintiff and another for the defendant. Thereafter, the first plaintiff has executed a sale deed in respect of her house and also given possession of the same to the defendant. Since the house sites standing in the names of the plaintiffs were next to the defendant's house site, the defendant has enjoyed the same along with his property. Due to misunderstanding between the second plaintiff and the defendant, the second plaintiff has started living with the first plaintiff, his daughter. IT is due to her instigation, the second plaintiff has executed a gift settlement deed in favour of the first plaintiff, which is not valid according to the defendant. IT is also the case of the defendant that the property built up by the corporation cannot be sold by anyone. Therefore, any right obtained by the first plaintiff under a settlement deed is not valid.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants also relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Rame Gowda (D) by lrs. v. M. Varadappa Naidu (D) by Lrs. & anr. reported in 2004-3-L. W. 143, to show that when once the Court finds that the plaintiff is in a settled possession, it is presumed to be a lawful possession, unless it is confronted with the title.