PALANIAMMAL Vs. KUPPUSWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiff in both the courts below is the appellant in the second appeal. The suit filed for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property and also for a permanent injunction from the user of the customary pathway leading to the common water tap in Oore natham from the house of the plaintiff.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that being the eldest daughter, her father Kandasamy Gounder alias Kandappa Gounder has executed two settlement deeds in her favour on 09. 05. 1979 and 11. 10. 1979 marked as Exs. A1 and A2 which are the suit properties out of which Ex. A. 1 relates to the A Schedule and A2 relates to B Schedule property and ever since the date of execution the plaintiff is in possession. The suit properties are comprised in Survey No. 72/2 which are item Nos. 1 and 2 in A Schedule and Survey No. 72/2b in B Schedule. Thereafter by two rectification deeds marked as Ex. A. 3 and A. 4 dated 20. 12. 1979, the father of the plaintiff has executed rectification in respect of the Survey number of the suit property. The plaintiff's case is that her forefathers have prescribed title by adverse possession by being in possession from 1905 onwards.

(3.) ACCORDING to the plaintiff a suit was filed by one Ponnayee alias Pavayee and her son against Vaiyapuri Gounder and another in O. S. No. 809 of 1960 before the District Munsiff Court, Sangari, Salem District for partition. The land measuring to the extent of 2. 49 acres in Survey No. 72/2 now renumbered as 72/2a referred as A Schedule property therein and land to the extent of 2. 37 acres comprised in Survey No. 72/2b referred to as B Schedule property therein were allotted to the respective parties to the suit. However, in respect of Survey No. 72/2c to the extent of 10 cents 72/2d in respect of 0. 22 cents and Survey No. 72/2e in respect of 0. 59 cents were not subject matter under the said decree marked as Ex. A. 8.