APPARAJU Vs. NATESAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the decree and judgment in A. S. No. 1 of 1996 on the file of the Court of Principal District Judge, Villupuram. The plaintiff in O. S. No. 1333/1989, who has lost his case before the Courts below, is the appellant herein.

(2.) THE averments in the plaint relevant for the purpose of this appeal are as follows:-

(3.) THE defendants in their written statement would contend that it is not correct to say that the plaint 'a' schedule property originally belonged to one Thayarammal under a sale deed dated 16. 10. 1922 and that after her death the plaintiff and his brothers have enjoyed the same and that the plaintiff have effected partition of the A schedule property as between themselves orally on 20. 10. 1989 and that in the oral partition 'b' schedule property was allotted to the share of the plaintiff. The defendants have not trespassed into the suit property. The plaintiff and his brothers are not in possession of the suit property and no patta has been issued in respect of the suit property in his favour. The entire extent of the suit survey No. 348/3 is 2 acres 15 cents. Muthalammal, wife of Ganapathy Gounder, has purchased an extent of 0. 96 cents on 19. 2. 1961 from one Panchalan. She has also purchased an extant of 0. 66 cents on 9. 2. 1962 from one Kalivaratha Gounder on a valid consideration of Rs. 1000/ -. In the suit property Muthalammal has 1 acres 62 cents. As a matter of fact she has been paying kist. The said Muthalammal, thereafter, sold 1 acre 44 cents on 17. 11. 1966 to one Ramalinga Gounder, father of D1 to D3, for valid consideration of Rs. 5,000/ -. From the date of purchase Ramalinga Gounder had enjoyed the suit property and the said Ramalinga Gounder have prescribed his title by adverse possession also. After the death of the said Ramalinga Gounder, D1 to D3 are entitled to the property measuring 1 acre 44 cents in the suit survey number. Neither the plaintiff nor his brothers are having right in the suit property. The defendants have not encroached the plaint 'b' schedule property. The defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit survey number property. There is no cause of action for the plaintiff. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.