SELVARAJU Vs. N PANDIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the decree and judgment in A. S. No. 168 of 1994 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore. The defendant in O. S. No. 121/1993 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Cuddalore, is the appellant herein.

(2.) THE short facts in the plaint relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as follows:

(3.) THE defendant has filed a written statement contending that the suit property is a joint family property of Thangavellu and Chinapaiyan, sons of Nachi. Hence, Thangavellu and Chinapaiyan are each entitled to = share each in the suit property. On 13. 12. 1962 both Thangavelu and Chinapaiyan had executed a sale deed in respect of the suit item No. 2 property in respect of 66 cents in favour of one Ammavasai. On 14. 08. 1963 Chinnapaiyan had executed a sale deed in respect of 33 cents in respect of plaint item No. 2 property in favour of Chinnakannu. On 15. 6. 1977, the plaintiff had purchased 33 cents from Chinnakannu. On 10. 9. 1968 Thagavelu had executed sale deed for 49 = cents on the eastern portion of item No. 2 and in respect of the entire first Item infavour of Thandavarayan. The above said sale deed is not valid one because Chinnapaiyan was entitled to one half share in the suit item No. 1 property. Under the above said sale deed Thangavelu had no right to execute a sale deed in respect of 1. 12 cents. The above said sale deed will not bind Chinnapaiyan. Thangavelu and Chinnapaiyan have orally partitioned their property a few years back. Under the partition half share was allotted in plaint item NO. 1. Chinnapaiyan was allotted 60 = cents on the south and the same was in possession and enjoyment of Chinnapaiyan and he was paying land tax to the properties fell into his share. The southern 60 = cents on the south was purchased by the defendant after the death of Chinnapaiyan from his sons Murugan and Arumugam. Hence, the defendant is entitled to southern 60 = cents in the plaint first schedule property. The plaintiff is not in possession of the paint schedule property. The defendant and his predecessors in title were in possession and enjoyment of 60 = cents on the southern portion of plaint schedule item No. 1 property for more than 20 years. Hence, the defendant has prescribed title by way of adverse possession to the plaint schedule item No. 1 property. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed.