CHELLAMUTHU Vs. KRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful defendants 3 and 4 in the Courts below are the appellants. The first respondent has filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction, in respect of the suit property measuring 0. 24. 0 Hect. (0. 60 cents) comprised in New Survey No. 287/b in Ramananaicken Palayam Village, Attur Taluk, Salem. The defendants 3 and 4 are the alienees from first and second defendants. The case of the plaintiff was that the property originally belonged to his maternal grandfather Pachamuthu Padayachi. One of his daughter Bagyam, namely, the first defendant has married Ponnusamy Padayachi and the second defendant was one of the sons born to her through Ponnusamy Padayachi. That apart the said Bagyam had other sons, namely, Singaravelu, Perumal and Jayaraman. The said Ponnusamy Padayachi who is the father of the second defendant has also married the sister of the first defendant Sampoornam and through her was born the plaintiff as his son. Therefore, the plaintiff is the brother of the second defendant born to his father Ponnusamy Padayachi through Sampoornam, while the second defendant was born to Ponnusamy Padayachi through the first defendant Bagyam. Pachamuthu Padayachi by a sale deed dated 22. 06. 1938 marked as Ex. A. 1 has sold the suit property and some other properties to the first defendant and her another elder sister Chinnammal. Thereafter, the first defendant and Chinnammal have orally partitioned among themselves, and the suit property was allotted to the first defendant.

(2.) AFTER the death of the father of the plaintiff Ponnusamy Padayachi, the suit property as well as the properties purchased by him were jointly enjoyed by the plaintiff, fist and second defendants and another brother of the second defendant. 15 years before the filing of the suit and after the death of the Ponnusamy Padayachi, there was a oral partition under which the suit property and some other properties were allotted to the plaintiff and the plaintiff has been in enjoyment for the past 15 years and perfected a title by adverse possession.

(3.) IT is also the case of the plaintiff that the first defendant as well as the second defendant have also sold the properties, which were given to their share. It is only the other son of the first defendant Perumal who has retained the property. The plaintiff having sold a portion of the property has retained the suit property to the extent of 60 cents in his possession. In these circumstances, the first and second defendant have illegally entered an agreement with the third and fourth defendants for the sale of the suit property and therefore, the present suit was filed.