S THIRAVIYAM AMMAL Vs. VELLAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant. He filed O.S.No.412 of 1979 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Paramakudi for declaration and permanent injunction. According to the plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to one Thirumalai Servai as his ancestral property .He sold it to the plaintiff on 10.9.1979 for a sum of Rs.4,800 under Exhibit A.1. In the said property, which is a vacant site measuring 120" east-west, 100" north- south, the plaintiff put up a thatched shed measuring 20 feet eat-west and 10 feet north-south, in the north eastern corner of it. She however, contended that she also is enjoying it by keeping hay ricks and tethering cattle thereon and before her, the predecessors were in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and thus the plaintiff has acquired prescriptive title to it. THE defendants who are having no right or possession or enjoyment over the suit property are threatening to interfere with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of it. With these averments she filed theabove suit.

(2.) THE first defendant filed a written statement adopted by defendants 2 to 4. He disputed the measurements mentioned by the plaintiff in this plaint. He also disputed the validity of the sale deed dated 10.9.1979. According to him, it has been brought out fraudulently by the plaintiff and her husband. He further contended that the suit property originally belonged to the first defendant's paternal grand-father Munian and after him it was enjoyed by his son viz.,the first defendant's father Punnuamuthu alias Poochi. After the death of Punniamuthu, the first defendant and his brother only have been in enjoyment of it. He further contended that the first defendant put up thatched shed in the suit property about 15 years back and has been living in it. THE Door Number of the thatched house is 43 and paying house tax also for it to the panchayat. In the recent heavy rains the house was damaged and he has rebuilt the same at present. Even in the sale deed dated 16.3.1937and 6.9.1939 in respect of the properties west of the suit property, the suit property has been referred to as belonging to the defendants only. Thus according to him, it is the defendants only who have acquired prescriptive title to the suit property. THE third defendant who is the son of the first defendant is not in good terms with him and has been living in a village for about 30 years. Only because, the plaintiff who is living north of the suit property from the defendants has got the sale deed executed in her favour and has come forward with this suit.

(3.) IN support of the plaintiff's case, plaintiffs father Deva Asirvatham, was examined as P.W.2 and one Thirmalai Servai and T. Ayub Khan were examined as P.Ws 1 and 3 respectively. Plaintiff has also marked Exhibits A1 to A4 in support of her case. On the other hand, the first defendant as examined as D.W.1 and one Balu was examined as D.W.2. Exhibits B.1 to B.21 were marked in support of their defence. The Commissioner's report, plan and additional report were marked as Exhibits C.1 to C.3. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the learned District Munsif, Paramakudi has held that it is the defendants who have proved title to the suit property and they have acquired prescriptive title also and the plaintiff has not proved her title or possession of the suit property.