KANNAYIRA DESIKAR Vs. CHELLAMANI; SATHAPPAN; VISALAKSHI; VALLIAPPAN; SEETHALAKSHMI; ANNAMALAI; PALANIAPPAN; NACHAMMAL; N MURUGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant, who lost the legal battle before both the Courts below, has come forward with this second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25.1.99 in A.S.No.l154 of 1998 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Sivagangai. Confirming the judgment and decree dated 19.06.1998 in O.S.No.78 of 1991 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivaganga.

(2.) The respondents 1 to 8, as plaintiffs, filed a suit for declaration that the suit property is belonging to the plaintiffs 1, 3 to 8 and the second defendant and consequential injunction, restraining the defendants not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property stating that the suit property has been purchased by the father of the 1st plaintiff and till his death, he was enjoying the same as his own. Tax has been paid by the brother of the 1st plaintiff viz., Chockalingam Chettiar. After his death, the first plaintiff and and his brother succeeded the property. In the partition, the suit property was allotted to 1st plaintiff and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. The building in the property was damaged condition. It was kept in as vacant. He executed power of attorney deed in favour of the second plaintiff on 07.01.1991. From that date onwards, the second plaintiff put up a thatched shed and enjoying the same. Since the suit property was enjoyed by the 1st plaintiff, he prescribed title by adverse possession. Except the plaintiffs, no one has right over the property. Since the plaintiffs refused to sell the property to the defendants, they attempted to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs and hence, the plaintiffs have constrained to file the suit, for the relief stated above.

(3.) Resisting the same, the first defendant filed a detailed written statement stating that the suit property was not properly described and it is a government natham. The first defendant has put up a thatched house and residing there. He also maintaining the garden on the backside and planted various trees like guava, mango, lemon and plantain etc. and using as cattle shed and storing wastage. He also running a timber shop in the name and style of Vijayalakshmi Timber shop after obtaining necessary license. He also paid fees to the Kundrakudi Panchayat and the property has also been assessed. Accordingly, he paid house tax in Door No.3/129 A.