BALUCHAMY Vs. G.SUBBIAH THEVAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2011 made in A.S.No.151 of 2003 on the file of the Camp Sub Court, Tirumangalam, confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.471 of 1994 dated 11.04.2003, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirumangalam.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.471 of 1994 praying for declaration and recovery of possession in respect of the suit property. It is averred in the plaint that the suit property is the western portion of the house in Door No.1 -A belonged to the plaintiff ancestrally. The plaintiff has produced the tax receipts, Property Tax Demand Card and also the Property Tax Demand Register copy in the name of plaintiff. The plaintiff had leased out the suit property to one Marimuthu, son of Gopal and he is running a petty shop in the property. The defendant is the owner of the building bearing Door no.61 which lies in the northern side of the suit property. The suit property is a small mud house whereas the property of the defendant is Madras Terraced house. The defendant has nothing to do with the suit property. The defendant requested the plaintiff to sell the suit property in his favour. But the plaintiff turned down his request. Ever since, he is entertaining ill feelings and grudges against the plaintiff. It appears that he has created some fraudulent records so as to deceive and defraud the plaintiff. The defendant is now claiming that the suit property forms part of his property. It is further stated in the plaint that the defendant's claim is false and vexatious. While so, on 24 -07 -1994 the defendant came to the suit property with a large body of unruly elements and sought to disturb the plaintiff's possession through his tenant. However, the plaintiff had sent him back at the intervention of the mediators. But while leaving the spot, the defendant threatened the plaintiff with dire consequences. Hence the suit has been filed for the reliefs as stated supra.

(3.) Written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant stating that the suit property will not lie behind the house bearing Door No.1 -A and the suit property is situated in the south eastern portion of the defendant's property and the suit property is a portion of Door No.61 which belonged to the defendant. The defendant would also contend that they had put up a tiled mud house in the suit property and leased out to one Periyasamy Thevar for running a tailoring shop and the defendant had filed RCOP.No.10/84 against the said Periyasamy Thevar and the plaintiff has colluded with the said Periyasamy Thevar to drag on the RCOP proceedings. The defendant would also contend that his father Gurusamy Thevar has purchased the suit property by way of registered sale deed dated 21 -01 -1918 and after his demise, the defendant is entitled to the suit property and the fact that the suit property is the portion of the defendant's house in Door No.61 was clearly proved through the Commissioner's Report filed in I.A.No.25/84 in RCOP.No.10/84. It is further stated that no cause of action is found in the plaint.