THAYANAYAKI AMMAL Vs. RAMACHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this second appeal is made by the plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 22.07.2010 made in A.S.No.92 of 2005 on the file of the II Additional Subordinate Court, Villupuram, confirming the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2005 made in O.S.No.436 of 2003 on the file of he District Munsif Court, Villupuram.

(2.) The suit has been laid for Declaration and Permanent Injunction.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows: The suit property is the ancestral property of the plaintiff's husband and the plaintiff and her husband are residing in the suit property. Natham Patta has also been granted by the Thasildar in the name of the plaintiff's husband. The plaintiff's father-in-law sold a portion and retained the suit property and considering the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff's husband, patta has been granted and for more than 30 years, the plaintiff's husband and the plaintiff are enjoying the suit property by paying Kist etc., Thereby, on account of their uninterrupted long possession and enjoyment of the suit property, asserting title over the statutory period to the knowledge of every one including the defendant the plaintiff has prescribed title to the suit property by adverse possession also. The plaintiff's husband executed a settlement deed dated 24.12.2001 in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and pursuant to the same also, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiff and her husband had constructed house, thatched shed with garden in the suit property. Gokilambal, the mother of the defendant, purchased the property to the east of the suit property from the plaintiff's husband and father-in-law on 03.12.1950 and boundary recital in the sale deed also clearly depict the same. The suit property was retained by the plaintiff's father-in-law and the remaining property was sold to the defendant's mother. While so, in order to grab the suit property, the defendant attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment and hence, the suit.