KUMARI @ MUNIAMMAL Vs. MANOHARAN S/O.SUBRAMANIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants. The 1 st respondent herein filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction. The suit was partly decreed granting declaration of title. The prayer for relief of permanent injunction was negatived without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff to recover possession of the suit property in accordance with law. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff as well as defendants 1 and 2 filed two appeals in A.S.No.37 of 2019 and A.S.No.14 of 2019 respectively. Both the appeals were dismissed by the First Appellate Court by affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal filed by the defendants 1 and 2, they have come before this Court by way of filing this second appeal. The plaintiff has not filed any second appeal challenging the dismissal of his first appeal.

(2.) According to the appellants/defendants 1 and 2, the suit property originally belonged to one Navaneethakannan. The defendants 3 to 7 are the legal heirs of said Navaneethakannan. The suit property was purchased by Navaneethakannan under the Sale Deed dtd. 23/4/1996 and he inturn entered into Agreement of Sale with the plaintiff for sale of the property on 14/9/1996. Subsequently, the suit property was sold to the plaintiff by Navaneethakannan on 31/10/1996 under Ex.A2. The plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property from the date of purchase. The plaintiff started raising basement in the suit property during December-2006, the 2nd defendant attempted to commit trespass into the suit property, without having any manner of right and attempted to make further construction. The plaintiff preferred a police complaint and on enquiry, police found that 2 nd defendant attempted to put up construction in the suit property on behalf of his sister, the 1st defendant. Later, the plaintiff came to know that 1 st defendant said to have purchased the suit property from the legal heirs of plaintiff 's vendor Navaneethakannan. After sale of the property in favour of the plaintiff by said Navaneethakannan, his legal heirs were not entitled to sell the property in favour of 1 st defendant. Hence, the plaintiff caused a legal notice on 14/6/2007 to the defendants appraising them of the true facts. The 1st defendant issued a vague reply on 9/7/2007 with untenable allegations. Since the defendants colluded together and attempted to dispossess the plaintiff, the present suit was filed seeking above said reliefs.

(3.) The 2nd defendant filed a written statement and the same was adopted by the 1st defendant. According to the contesting defendants, the suit property was originally purchased by Navaneethakannan and after his death, the same has been in possession and enjoyment of the defendants 3 to 7, the legal heirs of Navaneethakannan. The defendants 1 and 2 denied the allegation in the plaint that Navaneethakannan sold the property to plaintiff during his life time. They also denied the possession of the plaintiff over the suit property. The defendants 1 and 2 contended that the 1 st defendant purchased the suit property from defendants 3 to 7 on 29/11/2002 under Ex.B2 and she was a bonafide purchaser of the suit property. It was contended that at the time of purchase, the defendants applied for Encumbrance Certificate for a period from 1/1/1996 to 1/5/2002 and in the said Encumbrance Certificate, there was only one entry that is the sale deed in favour of said Navaneethakannan. It was further contended that the defendants 1 and 2 entered into an agreement with a Builder called R.Sundar and construction has been already put up in the suit property upto the level of basement. The allegation in the plaint as if, plaintiff had been doing construction work in the suit property was specifically denied. Thus, denying alleged title and possession of the plaintiff over the suit property, the defendants 1 and 2 sought for dismissal of the suit.