K DURAI Vs. VALLIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been preferred against the decree and judgment in A. S. No. 34/1995 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Thiruvellore. The defendant, in O. S. No. 662/1987 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Ponneri, is the appellant herein. The plaintiff has filed the suit in O. S. No. 662/1987 for an order of permanent injunction in respect of the plaint schedule property.

(2.) THE short facts of the case of the plaintiff in the plaint relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as follows:-The plaint schedule house bearing Door No. 24 in S. No. 8/2 in Sasthri Nagar, Periasekkadu Village, Madavaram, belongs to the plaintiff. The property tax is being levied in the name of the plaintiff. 'b' memos are issued and kist are paid in the name of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit property for the past 16 years. The defendant, who is the distant relative of the plaintiff, is residing near Madras city. On the evil advise of some local people he wanted to grab at the suit property and attempted to put up a hut on 2. 11. 1987 which was prevented by the plaintiff. Again on 9. 11. 1987, he attempted for the second time to trespass into the property. Therefore the plaintiff was obliged to prefer a police complaint on 9. 11. 1987 with J-3, Police Station in M. M. Colony, Madhavaram. When the Police asked the defendant to show the documentary evidence in respect of the suit property, he could not produce any document and also failed to appear before the police officials. The plaintiff was asked by the police to approach the Court for appropriate remedy. The defendant is making attempt to trespass into the suit property and he is trying to put up a hut by force. The defendant has no right what so ever over the suit property. Hence, the suit.

(3.) THE defendant in is written statement would contend as follows:-3 (a) The defendant is not residing at the address shown in the plaint. He is residing only in the suit property. The defendant is aged 29 years. The defendant was not served with summon, notice and service copies. The plaintiff attempted to dispossess the defendant by approaching the police with the ad-interim injunction order. At that time the defendant noted down the suit number and engaged the counsel. The plaintiff has intentionally given wrong address as hers. The plaintiff is residing only at Perumal Koil Street, in Periasekkadu. The plaintiff's husband is in possession of the site to the north of the suit land. The superstructure therein has been letout. Designedly the door number of that house and the house in the suit property in which the defendant is residing have been shown as the place of residence of the plaintiff. The suit and further proceedings are to be stayed till the plaintiff gives her correct address. 3 (b) The suit land cannot be owned absolutely by anybody till the Government grants patta. The suit land is classified as assessed waste. The plaintiff's husband Perumal is the maternal uncle of the defandant. He is the younger brother of the defendant's mother Ellammal. Ellammal was given in marriage at Ramavaram village near Nandhambakkam. The defendant is the youngest issue of his mother. When he was about 1 years of age his father expired. His mother chose to move to Periasekkadu village. On her own she occupied the suit land which was Government land. She was residing there along with her children. The eldest sister and the next one of the defendant were given in marriage only from that house. The defendant's mother was doing vegetable vending business and apart from that any seasonal business during day time. She died about 9 years ago. The plaintiff's husband had occupied the land immediately north of the suit land. He had been lettingout the superstructure. The plaintiff's husband was a chief mason in the locality. The defendant's mother used to pay the tax and charges to the Government through him at times. They were very cordial. A few years before the death of Ellammal she was ill intermittently. She used to reside in her sister's house in Agraharam village. The plaintiff's husband used to look after the suit property on her behalf. 3 (c) After the death of the mother the defendant alone stayed in the suit house. His immediate elder sister was brought up by his junior maternal aunt. In fact the defendant was very cordial towards his uncle's family. The plaintiff herself used to attend to the needs of the defendant. The defendant too used to leave the payment of property tax to the house and charges to the Government through his uncle. The property tax assessment has been only in the name of the defendant's mother Ellammal. 3 (d) The defendant is doing welding work and earning Rs. 900/- per month. The plaintiff wanted the defendant to marry her daughter. The plaintiff has four sons and one daughter. Perhaps she thought that her daughter is given in marriage to the defendant she will be in the same village. But the defendant did not feel like marrying the girl who was practically brought up with him. The plaintiff is bent up on harassing the defendant and causing hardship to him since then. The plaintiff gave her daughter in marriage to her close relative in or about the first week of November 1987 with created, altered and corrected documents, suppressing the fact that the site was in the possession of the defendant's mother and only the defendant is in possession. Even from 1987, 'b' memo was given only to the defendant as he is in possession. 3 (e) Receipts and documents of the defendant's mother which were with the plaintiff's husband have been used for filing the suit after forging the same. After filing the suit and obtaining exparte ad-interm injunction the documents were taken back from the Court. The name of the defendant's mother in the receipts filed along with the suit appear to have been tampered with. Only after a memo was filed for production, the said documents were produced. The very fact that the documents have been tampered with would go to show that the suit is a cooked up one. The plaintiff has no possession to be intereferewith. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed.