KARUPPAIAH Vs. PITCHAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiffs in O.S. No.83 of 2004 and in O.S. No.87 of 2004 on the file of District Munsif Court, Ilayangudi, are the appellants before this Court.

(2.) The appellants filed a suit in O.S.No.87 of 2004 for declaration of title and consequential permanent injunction restraining the respondents in S.A.No.321 of 2011 from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit properties are described as two items located in Valasaikadu Village, Ilayangudi Taluk. The plaintiffs also filed another suit in O.S.No.83 of 2004 against one Pitchai the respondent in S.A.No.320 of 2011, in respect of another property for similar relief. In both the suits, it was the common case of the plaintiffs/appellants that the suit properties originally belonged to one Sathappakonar and that he executed a settlement deed in favour of their mother, one Sathayee Ammal who is none other than the daughter of the settlor through his fourth wife one Azhagamma. It was the further case of the plaintiffs that the suit property pursuant to the settlement deed dated 29.06.1942, was enjoyed by their mother - Sathayee Ammal and that after the death of Sathayee Ammal, they are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

(3.) The defendants in the two suits claimed right to the suit properties on the basis of sale deeds obtained from one Muthazhagu, who according to them, is the son of one Karuppiah, who is also one of the sons of the fourth wife of the settlor namely Azhagamma. The defendants in the suit who claimed to have purchased the properties from the brother of the plaintiffs mother, specifically denied the execution of settlement deed by Sathappakonar dated 29.06.1942. The document under Ex.A1 produced by the plaintiffs before the trial Court is only a certified copy of the original. Hence, the trial Court specifically held that Ex.A1 is not admissible in evidence as the original document has not been filed. Without addressing any other issue, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court only on the ground that the plaintiffs have not proved their document of title. Even in the absence of settlement deed, it is to be noted that the plaintiffs being the granddaughters of Azhagammal through her daughter, are also entitled to claim a share in the suit properties as the properties are the self-acquired properties of Sathappakonar. Without considering any other issue, the suit was dismissed. The appellants preferred the appeals in A.S.No.90 of 2008 and A.S.No.93 of 2008 before the sub-Court, Sivaganga.