C. RAVICHANDRAN Vs. E. ANNAMALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree in A.S. No.30 of 2017 on the file of Principle Sub Court, Krishnagiri dtd. 16/10/2019 modifying the Judgment and decree dtd. 17/3/2017 passed in O.S. No.169 of 2012, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri.

(2.) The 1st defendant is the appellant herein. The plaintiffs have preferred the above suit in O.S.No.169 of 2012 for declaration of title and for permanent injunction.

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit property is comprised in S.No.71 and in S.No.269/1 measuring 1.12.5 hectre belonged to the father of the plaintiffs namely Eswarappa Gounder who acquired the same from an ancestral oral partition effected 60 years ago prior to the suit. After his demise, the plaintiffs succeeded the suit property and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the same by paying kists to the Government. On 21/12/1938, one Kuppanna Gounder had purchased 3 1/2 /5 shares in S.No.269/1 measuring 1.96 acres and sold the same to Eswarappa Gounder and others. In pursuant to the family arrangement, the said Eswarappa Gounder, had got the above mentioned 1.92 acres in S.No.269/1. Apart from that, on 28/5/1954, one Gundi Venkatappan had gifted 0.30 cents of land in the said Survey number. Therefore, the plaintiffs' father got 2.26 acres in the said survey number 269/1. The remaining 0.48 cents land was gifted by the said Gundi Venkatappan in favour of Tirupati Sri Venkatesa Perumal Temple through a settlement deed dtd. 15/7/1957. The plaintiffs' father was cultivating the said temple's land and paid Rs.20.00 per annum during Puratasi month for performing pooja in the said temple. After his life time, the plaintiffs have been in possession and enjoyment of the same and are paying pooja expenses to the temple. The defendants do not have any right in the suit property and had fabricated a sale deed dtd. 26/11/2010 in favour of the 1st defendant with intention to grab the suit property. Under the guise of the said sale deed, the defendants are attempting to disturb the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Hence, the suit.