RANI Vs. ARUNTHAVAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the decree and judgment in A.S.No.31 of 1990 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram. The defendants in O.S.No.1058/1981 on the file of the Court ofDistrict Munsif, Chidambaram, who have lost their defence before the trial Court and also their appeal before the first appellate Court, are the appellants herein.

(2.) The short facts of the plaint relevant for deciding this appeal sans irrelevant particulars are as follows: The suit property absolutely belonged to Dhanabagyam, wife of Subbaraya Chettiar. The said Dhanabagyam is the mother-in-law of the plaintiff. Dhanabagyam executed a Settlement deed on 5.5.1958 at the time of plaintiff's marriage. Dhanabagyam's son Ayyathurai was married to plaintiff in 1958. As per the settlement deed, the plaintiff and her husband are entitled to the suit properties. The said settlement deed was acted upon and possession was handedover under the document. The suit properties immediately vested with the plaintiff and her husband who have four children, they were in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit properties from the date of said document. The settlor Dhanabagyam was maintained throughout by the plaintiff and her husband. Dhanabagyam died in the year 1974 and Ayyadurai died in the year 1976. The plaintiff is the present owner of the suit properties. She had right title and interest in the suit property. Defendants have no right, title or interest in respect of the plaint schedule properties. The second defendant is the daughter of Dhanabagyam. D3 is the daughter of D2. D2 and D3 have set up D1 & D4 to give trouble to plaintiff. Troubles arose only after the death of plaintiff's husband in1976. In July 1977 defendants caused interference to plaintiff's possession of suit properties. The plaintiff was not allowed to cultivate the suit property taking advantage that the plaintiff is a helpless poor widow. Plaintiff's efforts to mediate the matter failed. Defendants are powerful and highhanded. All these years she hoped that she could settle the matter and waited, but in vain. From July 1977 defendants are in wrongful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. They are trespassers. They have no rights to continue in possession. While the suit is pending the 1st defendant died. His legal representatives are the defendants 5 to 9. The 5th defendant is his widow and defendants 6 to 9 are his children. Hence, the suit.

(3.) The D1 & D2 died. D3, D5 to D9 remain exparte. D4 is the only contesting defendant, who has filed the following written statement: The allegation in the plaint that the suit property belonged to plaintiff's mother-in-law Dhanabagyam and that the plaintiff and her husband became owner of the suit property under a settlement deed dated 5.5.1958 alleged to have been executed by the said Dhanabagyam are all not true. The suit properties do not belong to Dhanabagyam. The settlement deed dated 5.5.1958 was not acted upon. The plaintiff and her husband never maintained Dhanapagyam. The defendants are not attempting to give any trouble to the plaintiff. It is not true that after the death of plaintiff's husband, the defendants began to give trouble to the plaintiff. The defendants have not trespassed into the suit property. In respect of plaint schedule item No.1 on the southern 29 cents and in plaint item No.2, 78 cents and also in respect of other properties the defendants are paying land tax and the patta also stands in the name of D4 and for the past 20 years D4 is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. D4 has purchased the suit property on 26.6.1981 and he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property from the date of the above said sale deed. The first defendant had purchased 29 cents on the southern portion of item No.1 and 25 cents on the northern portion of item No.2 from Kumarasamy and Nagaraj on 22.10.1964. He has also purchased 53 cents on the southern portion of item No.2 to the plaint schedule from Kaliyaperuma and Kupusamy. D4 has purchased the above said properties as per the sale deed dated 26.6.1981 from the D1. In the plaint item No.1 northern 87 cents belonged to D1 to D3 since they were in possession and enjoyment of the same for the past 15 years, from whom, D4 had purchased the same on 11.7.1981 for a sum of Rs.4,400/-. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.