VEERAMUTHU Vs. PUTTALAYEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The above second appeal has been filed by the defendant in O.S. No. 704 of 1981, on the file of the Court of Principal District, Munsif, Pondicherry, who was unsuccessful before both the Courts below.

(2.) THE respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for directing the defendant to hand over the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff and for payment of Rs.2,250 being the mesne pr of its for three years. THE suit came to be filed before the Trial Court on 24.9.1981. THE case of the plaintiff was that originally, the schedule mentioned property belonged to one Sadaiyan and the said Sadaiyan died leaving behind his son, Maayan, who left behind him a daughter by name Kuppu and the plaintiff claims to be the only son, and heir of Kuppu. During the lifetime of the father of the plaintiff, it appears that he had been in possession and enjoyment and after the death of his father, the mother Kuppu appears to have leased out the property to Seenan and the said Seenan claiming to be the owner, has sold the property in favour of the defendant as per the sale deed dated 2.7.1969 and the defendant on the strength of the said sale deed has filed a suit against the plaintiff in this suit for declaration of his title over the suit property and for permanent injunction. THE suit, ultimately, ended in favour of the plaintiff in O.S. No. 151 of 1970, who is the present defendant.

(3.) THE appellant herein, the defendant in the present suit filed a written statement contending that the claims made in the plaint regarding genealogy and other particulars are incorrect, that the suit property was in continuous, open and peaceful possession of one Seenan for over 60 years and after the death of Seenan, his only son Gopal was in possession from whom the defendant came to purchase the same under a sale deed dated 2.7.1969 and the defendant is a bona fide purchaser for value, without knowledge of any alleged vitiating circumstances, that it was Gopal who was paying the tax due to the property in the year 1969 and from that time onwards, the defendant had been in possession raising short term dry crops. THE further plea on behalf of the defendant was though no doubt, he filed a suit in O.S. No. 151 of 1970, which was decreed by the Trial Court, but, on appeal before the First Appellate Judge, the suit came to be dismissed and that he failed in the second appeal before this Court, he contends that the earlier suit was one for bare injunction and the question of title was not germane and that in any event, the defendant perfected title by adverse possession and he and his predecessors in title have been in possession and enjoyment continuously for more than 60 years and the defendant, therefore, has possessory title to the property. THE claim for mesne profits was also denied and disputed and the defendant prayed that the suit may be dismissed.