DANALAKSHMI Vs. RAMALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the decree and judgment in A. S. No. 66 of 1996 on the file of the Court of first additional Sub Judge, Pondicherry. The plaintiff who has got a decree in her favour before the trial Court could succeed only in respect of 2/3rd share before the first appellate Court, is the appellant herein.

(2.) THE averments in the plaint relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as follows: the plaint schedule property was originally belonged to one deivaseekamani Gounder. After his death, the property devolved on his two sons viz. , Gopalsamy and Manickam. Gopalswamy and Manickam executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff on 20. 6. 1979 for a valuable consideration of rs 760/ -. Thereafter, the plaintifif is in continuous possession of the suit property, cultivating the same. From the date of sale, the plaintiff is in uninterrupted possession of the plaint schedule property. The plaintiff is only paying the tax from the date of the sale. The property is punja land which was ploughed by the plaintiff and raised Millet crops. The defendant, on 10. 7. 1982, who has no right over the property obstructed the plaintiff and for that she has lodged a police complaint and they advised the party to move the Civil Court for appropriate remedy. Hence the suit for declaration of plaintiff's right in suit property and also for consequential permanent injunction.

(3.) THE defendant filed a written statement contending that the plaintiff claims her title in respect of the suit property under a sale deed executed by Gopalsamy and manickam, two sons of Deivaseekamani Gounder which cannot be allowed under law. The suit property originally belonged to deivaseekamani Gounder. He had his wife by name Rajambal. Deivaseekamani died issueless. Rajambal who was enjoying the property as a legal heir of Deivaseekamani, sold the same in favour of Lakshmi Ammal on 17. 1. 1873. Thereafter, lakshmi Ammal continued possession of the property and she was also raising crops in the same. The defendant purchased the schedule item of the suit property from Lakshmi Ammal by way of registered sale deed dated 22. 2. 1982. From the date of purchase, the defendant is enjoying the property as absolute owner. In the sale deed of the defendant only the cad Number of the property was wrongly given, but the boundaries of the suit property and also the property purchased by the defendant tallies. The defendant is paying tax to the property and he is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The defendant filed a suit in O. S. No. 541 of 1982 on the file of the Additional district Munsif Court and the said suit is pending. The defendant was granted ad interim injunction in the said suit. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff vexatiously. Only Millet crop has been raised in the property which is in the possession of the defendant. Gopalsamy and Manickam are not the children of deivaseekamani. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.