METTILBAI Vs. BALAMMAL; BRIGHT; THOMAS; LILLYBAI; VIMALABAI; SUGANTHABAI; DEVASUNDARAM; SAM SUNDAR; JAYA; HEMALATHA; RAKEL; CHARLET; REJITHAM; JEBAMONI; KANAGAMMAL NADACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff, who last the legal battle before both the Courts below, has come forward with this Second Appeal challenging the Judgement and Decree dated 24.10.2005, passed in A.S.No.30 of 2005, on the file of the learned District Judge, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, by confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 13.12.2004, passed in O.S.No.178 of 2003, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Padmanabhapuram.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Counsel for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.

(3.) The appellant, as a plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.178 of 2003 for declaration of title and injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by stating that the suit properties are originally belonged to Thankayyan, Nesayyan and Nesamony, who are brothers. Nesamony, who was the eldest brother executed a mortgage deed for him and for his brothers as guardian, on 13th Karkatakam 1107 M.E. (28.07.1932) in favour of one Chellammal Nadachy, daughter of Rahel Nadachy. The mortgage is not redeemed so far and by efflux of time, the mortgagee Chellammal became the owner of the properties. On 05.07.2000, Chellammal executed a registered will deed 47 of 2000 (05.07.2000) in favour of the plaintiff to an extent of 1 Acre 36 cents and 593 square links in Resurvey No.141/8 of Ponmanai Village. On 30.03.1993, Chellammal Nadachy sold 35 cents and 218 square links in R.S.No.141/8 to the plaintiff. On 30.03.1993, Kanakammal Nadachy, daughter of Rahel Nadachy executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff to an extent of 10 cents in R.S. No.141/8. Thus the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit properties. The defendants have no right, title and possession over the suit properties and they are trying to enter into the properties by claiming that they are the owners of the suit properties. Hence, she is constrained to file the suit for for declaration of title and injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.