SUNDARRAJ Vs. G GEORGE PACKKIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant in O. S. No. 807 of 1993 on the file of the District Munsif, Pattukkottai, who has lost his defence before the first appellate Court, has preferred this second appeal.

(2.) THE averments in the plaint in brief relevant for the purpose of deciding this second appeal sans irrelevant particulars are as follows:-

(3.) THE first defendant has filed written statement with the following contentions:-Anthoniyammal got the plaint schedule property in family partition and she was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property till her death. The averment that the said Anthoniyammal had sold the plaint schedule property in the year 1978 for a valuable consideration in favour of the plaintiff is not true. The plaintiff has not prescribed title to the suit property by way of adverse possession. The suit is not maintainable. The plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and he has not raised any crops in the suit property and he is not paying any land tax to the suit property. Late Anthoniyammal had sons by name Thairiyam, Suntharaj and Thurairaj and daughters by name Grace, Roseline, Pushpam and Manoranjeetham. Out of the daughters Grace and Pushpam are now no more. Grace died issueless. But there are legal representatives to late Pushpam. The suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parities. Anthoniyammal was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property till her death. A portion of the property was acquired by the Government for formation of canal and the compensation amount was also received by the said Anthoniyammal. After formation of the canal Anthoniyammal was in possession of about 30 Kuzhi of lands on the east of the canal and 27 kuzhi of lands on the west of the said canal and was enjoying the same in two flats. She died on 21. 12. 1985. After her death, D1 and D2 are in possession and enjoyment of the said land as legal heirs of Anthoniyammal. After the death of Anthoniyammal, plaintiff approached the defendants for the sale of the suit property. Since D1 and D2 are not willing to sell the suit property to the plaintiff, with an ulterior motive the plaintiff has filed the suit. The plaintiff is having both muscle power and money power and the defendants are poor agriculturist. The plaintiff have demolished the bund on the northern side of the suit property and had ploughed the land and raised the crops. In this connection, the defendants have preferred a police complaint against the plaintiff on 8. 10. 1993. In a clandestine manner the plaintiff had obtained kist receipts in his name from out of the money given by Anthoniyammal to pay the land tax in her name. The plaintiff has no right title or possession in respect of the suit property. There is not cause of action for the suit. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. The other defendants have adopted the written statement filed by D1.