INBAMATHI Vs. RAMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S.No.625 of 1992 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Virudhachalam, who has lost before the Courts below has filed the above second appeal.

(2.) THE appellant filed the suit for declaration of her title to the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession.

(3.) AN additional written statement was filed by the third defendant which was adopted by the fourth defendant. The additional written statement is to the following effect: The suit property is not the exclusive property of Thaialnayaki and she had no right to alienate the same and therefore the appellant cannot claim any right under the sale deed. In respect of the suit properties, a joint patta was issued in favour of Thaialnayaki and one Chinnapillai. The said fact is borne out in the Chitta, Adangal and in the 'A' Register pertaining to fasli 1384 and 1385. Under the Will, Mookapadayachi had bequeathed 'A' schedule property to Thaialnayaki and 'B' schedule property to Karupayee, who is his second wife and 'C' schedule property to Chinnapillai and all of them have been given only life estate and after the demise, the properties were to go to Thiruvenkadam and Chakravarthy and they have to hold the property in Trust for Charitable purpose. Defendants 3 and 4 are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. Chakravarthy's wife is Amsalai and Chakravarthy's daughters are Amudha and Jayalakshmi and they are the joint owners of the properties and they have not been impleaded as parties in this suit and therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. Further in pursuance of the Will dated 11.02.1939, the said Chinnapillai filed a suit in O.S.No.293 of 1995 against Thaialnayaki, Karupayee and Chokkalinga Padayachi and has obtained a decree against them in respect of trees in the suit properties. The said decree is binding on the said Thaialnayaki and the appellant. According to the appellant, there is no entry in the Sub-Registrar's Office for having discharged the mortgage loan of Rs.10,000/-. The appellant is not a bona fide purchaser. The said deed has not come into effect and the appellant has not paid any costs. On the above said pleadings, the defendants sought for the dismissal of the suit.