MANICKA PADAYACHI Vs. CHINNAIYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and decree in A.S.No.6 of 1993 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram. The defendants, who have lost their defence before the Courts below, are the appellants herein.

(2.) The averments in the plaint for the purpose of deciding this appeal sans irrelevant particulars are as follows: The suit is for declaration of plaintiff's title in respect of three cents out of 1 acre 65 cents in Re-survey N0.11/3 in Chettimuttu Village, Chidambaram Taluk, for recovery of possession, mesne profits and for mandatory injunction. The entire 1 acre 65 cents in Re-survey No.11/3 in Chettimuttu Village, originally belonged to one Mohammed Mustafa Saheb. The plaintiff was a cultivating tenant of the same and he was in possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. After the death of Mohammed Mustafa Saheb, his heirs sold the southern 10 cents out of 1 acre 65 cents to one Kulandaivel Padayachi under a registered sale deed dated 31.10.1977 for valuable consideration. The said Kulandaivel sold the above said 10 cents to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 25.3.1982. Thus, the plaintiff became entitled to southern 10 cents absolutely and he had been in possession and enjoyment of the same from the date of the sale. The heirs of Mohammed Mustafa Saheb sold the remaining northern 1 acre 55 cents to the plaintiff under a registered sale deed dated 21.5.1985 for proper consideration. Thus, the plaintiff became entitled to the entire 1 acre 65 cents in R.S.No.11/3 and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The plaint schedule property is southern 3 cents out of 1 acre 65 cents.

(3.) The first defenant has filed a written statement contending that the property is in R.S.No.11/3 measuring 1 acre 65 cents originally belonged to Mohammed Mustafa Saheb. The averment in the plaint that the plaintiff was the cultivating tenant of the entire extent of 1 acre 65 cents under Mohammed Mustafa Saheb is not correct. The plaintiff has not purchased 10 cents in R.S.No.11/3 from Kulanthaivel Padayatchi, the predecessors-in-tile under Mohammed Mustafa Saheb. The plaintiff has not taken any sale deed from the heirs of Mohammed Mustafa Saheb in respect of the remaining 1 acre 55 cents in R.S.No.11/3. The plaintiff is not entitled to the entire extent of 1 acre 65 cents in R.S.No.11/3. The defendants have not trespassed into an extent of southern 3 cents out of 1 acre 65 cents in May 1983 as contended by the plaintiff. For the notice dated 21.5.1986, the defendants have sent a suitable reply on 26.5.1986.