MARUDHAI; PARAMASIVAM; SUNDARARAJAN Vs. KATHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants, who lost the case in both the Courts below have come forward with this second appeal against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Kulithalai dated 23.01.2006 in A.S.No.65 of 2005 confirming the judgment and degree of the District Munsif, Kulithalai dated 27.12.2004 in O.S.No.219 of 2001.

(2.) The respondent, as plaintiff, filed a suit for bare injunction restraining the defendants from interfering his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property situated in Thogaimalai Village in S.No.174/4 to the extent of 0.46.0 hectares and in S.No.179/11 to the extent of 0.58.0 hectares stating that the property is owned by Lakshmi and Andi Muthiriar under the sale deed dated 02.08.1980 and since they intended to go abroad, they orally sold the same to the grand father of the plaintiff viz., Ponnambalam for Rs.250/- and handed over the original sale deed and possession of the suit property and from that date onwards, said Ponnambalam was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property till his death in 1978. After his death, his only son Mariappan, succeded the property and after his death, in 20.12.2000, the plaintiff succeeded the property and he was in possession and enjoyment for more than 60 years without any interference. Now, the defendants 1 and 2, who are the junior paternal uncles without any right in the suit property attempted to interfere the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. They have no right over the property. The third defendant claiming title as if he purchased the suit property from the defendants 1 and 2 attempted to interfere the possession of the plaintiff and hence, the plaintiff has constrained to file the suit for bare injunction.

(3.) Resisting the same, the appellants/defendants filed a detailed written statement stating that Ponnambalam is not the owner of the property and he was not in possession and enjoyment of the same. The property is originally owned by Thothammai and Kanniammal and after their demise, the property belongs to Ponnambalam, Karuppannan and Vairaperumal and they are entitled each 1/3 share. The third defendant purchased the property from the defendants 1 and 2 for a sum of Rs.75,000/- vide sale deed dated 12.04.2001. From that date onwards, the third defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, openly, continuously and uninterruptedly for more than statutory period. Hence, he prescribed title by adverse possession and prayed for dismissal of the suit.