RAMASAMI GOUNDER Vs. CHELLAKUTTY KOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in this second appeal has impugned the Judgment and decree dated 29.09.2010 made in A.S.No.4 of 2006 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Gingee confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 31.08.2005 made in O.S.No.2 of 1995 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Gingee.

(2.) The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction. The plaintiff claims title to the suit properties based upon the Sale Deed dated 18.08.1984 executed by Perumal Mastry in his favour. The parent title Deed dated 12.12.1961 has been executed in favour of Perumal Mastry by Lakshmanan. The above said Sale Deeds have been marked as Ex.B2 and B1 respectively. Under Ex.B2, the plaintiff has purchased an extent of 0.18 cents within the specific boundaries in S.No.112/4, out of the total extent of 0.56 cents and 0.95 and cent in S.No.114/1 out of the total extent of 2.87 cents within the specific boundaries. It is also pleaded by the plaintiff that the remaining extent in S.No.112/4 namely 0.37 cents has been purchased by the defendant and similarly the defendant has also purchased the remaining 1.91 acres in S.No.114/1 and it is found that claiming title to the extent of the property purchased in the above said suit survey numbers, the defendant has laid a suit against the plaintiff in O.S.No.557 of 1994. It is found that both O.S.Nos.557 of 1994 & 2 of 1995 were jointly tried and common evidence was recorded in O.S.No.557 of 1994 on the basis of the joint memo filed by the respective parties. It is also found that both the suits were decreed. However, against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.557 of 1994, the plaintiff did not prefer any appeal. On the other hand, the defendant preferred the first appeal against the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.2 of 1995. But the first Appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.2 of 1995. Aggrieved over the same, the present second appeal has been preferred by the defendant.

(3.) Based upon the boundary recitals found in the title deeds of the plaintiff and the defendant and also based upon the clear admission made by the defendant in the suit that the suit properties are in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff and that the defendant has no objection to the same in any manner and considering the same, among other things, the Courts below have rightly found that the plaintiff has title to the suit properties and that the suit properties are in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Courts below have upheld the plaintiff's case.