VEERASAMY AND ANOTHER Vs. RAMACHANDRAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants in the above two second appeals.

(2.) One Ramachandran filed the suit O.S. 35 of 1975 on the file of Second Addl. Sub-Judge, Pondicherry for declaration to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the schedule mentioned property, directing the defendants to handover possession of the same and also decree for future mense profits.

(3.) The averments in the plaint are briefly as follows : The suit property originally belonged to Amma Kannuammal and Veerammal of Pondicherry. These two persons having their respective rights over the suit property sold the property in favour of the plaintiff by virtue of the notarial sale deed dated 23-1-1945 (Ex. A. 1). At the time of sale itself there was a specific stipulation by the vendors in respect of the enjoyment of the properties. The stipulation related to the aspect of usufructuary right owned by one Visalatchi Ammal (a) Chinnathaiammal. Specific recital is put in the said deed to the effect that the said Visalatchiammal (A) Chinnathaiammal have the enjoyment of the property and the vendee i.e. the plaintiff will get the enjoyment from the date of death of Visalatchiammal (A) Chinnathaiammal. Accordingly, the title in the property passed on to the plaintiff absolutely. 3A. The said Visalatchiammal died in the year 1970 at Pudupet in South Arcot District. The factum of title of the said lady came to the knowledge of this plaintiff only in the month of Dec., 1974 whereby he went to the said village and ascertained about the death of the said lady and has also obtained a certificate to that effect. In view of the entitlement to the immediate enjoyment of the property that accrues to the plaintiff owing to the death of the said lady, he approached the 1st defendant who is said to have been managing the property on behalf of the said Visalakshiammal. But the 1st defendant refused to handover possession. Thereupon the plaintiff issued a lawyer's notice on 27-12-1974 (Ex. A. 3) intimating him the demise of the said Visalatchiammal and asking for possession of the lands. However, in the said notice an earlier deed of sale was mistakenly referred and a rectified notice referring to the present sale deed dated 23-1-1945 came to be given on 4-1-1975 (Ex. A. 6). But there is no response from the first defendant. With the assistance of the defendants 2 and 3 the 1st defendant is creating further troubles. Since the defendants are not amenable to the Panchayat, the plaintiff constrained to file the present suit. The 1st defendant is liable to pay mesne profits for his wrongful possession from Dec., 1970.