MUTHU Vs. CHINNASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O. S. No. 471 of 1985 on the file of Court of District Munsif, Ariyalur who has succeeded his case before the trial Court, having lost his case before the Court of Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur in the appeal preferred by the defendants, is the appellant herein.

(2.) THE short facts of the case of the plaintiff in the plaint relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as follows: the suit is for declaration of title and for consequential permanent injunction. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the plaint schedule property, which was purchased by him on 21. 9. 1985 for a sale consideration of Rs 6,000/- from one Kulanthaivelu Padaiyachi. From the date of purchase itself, the plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. 66 cents on the east of the suit property belongs to the plaintiff. Only for the convenient enjoyment of his property, he had purchased the suit land which is situated on the east of 0. 66 cents land. The defendants are brothers. The defendants have no land adjacent to the suit land. There is a long standing enmity prevailing between the plaintiff and the defendants. Only to harass the plaintiff, the defendants trespassed into the suit property on 20. 10. 1985 and attempted to cut and remove the standing crops therein. The said attempt of the defendants thwarted by timely intervention of the plaintiff. The defendants are denying the title of the plaintiff to the suit property. The defendants claim that they have purchased the suit property. Even if there is any sale deed in favour of the defendants, it is only nominal and it will not bind the plaintiff. Hence the plaintiff has filed the suit.

(3.) THE second defendant has filed a written statement adopted by the other defendants as follows: The sale deed dated 21. 9. 1985 said to have been in the name of the plaintiff is the fraudulent document. It is a sham and nominal document. Now under the above said sale deed, the plaintiff cannot claim any right or title in respect of the suit property. The vendor of the plaintiff viz. , Kulanthaivelu had no right or title to execute the sale deed dated 21. 9. 1985 in respect of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants have neither made any attempt to trespass into the property nor made any attempt to cut and carry away the standing crops. The sale deed dated 21. 9. 1985 in favour of the plaintiff is void document. After knowing that the defendants have purchased the suit property, the plaintiff had created the document dated 21. 9. 1985 along with his vendor Kulanthaivelu only for the purpose of filing this case. Out of 2 acre 10 cents, 75 cents in Survey No. 418/2 originally belonged to one Duraiswamy, his wife Meenkashi Ammal and their son Kulanthaivelu. The four boundaries for the said property are as follows: Northern boundary for the suit property is the land belonging to Sivan Temple; eastern boundary for the suit property is land belonging to Subbarayan; Southern boundary for the suit property is a road and western boundary for the suit property is the land belonging to Muthu (Plaintiff ). The entire 75 cents in the suit survey number property was sold by the above said Duraiswamy, his wife Meenakshi Ammal and their son Kulanthaivelu under the sale agreement dated 4. 2. 1985 for a sum of Rs. 29,000/- On the date of agreement itself, the possession of the above said 75 cents was handed over to the defendants. As per the recitals in the said sale agreement dated 4. 2. 1985, the defendants have paid a sum of Rs 9,000/- to their vendor. Out of the balance of sale consideration of Rs. 20,000/- on 16. 6. 1985 , a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was paid by the defendant to their vendor and the balance of Rs 15,000/- was paid by the defendants to their vendor on 20. 9. 1985 ie. , on the date of registration of the sale deed before the Registrar. The defendants have raised crops in the said land and harvested the same, afterwards they have raised black gram in the suit land. After knowing full well the execution of the sale agreement and about the registration of the sale deed dated 29. 9. 1985 in pursuance of the sale deed dated 4. 2. 1985, the plaintiff in connivance with one of the vendors of the defendants viz Kulanthaivelu have created a sale deed in respect of the suit property on 21. 9. 1985. After the transfer of possession in favour of the defendants, mutation has been effected and patta was also granted in favour of the defendants. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.