ANANTHAM AMMAL Vs. KAMALAMBAL EXPARTE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (APPEAL under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.51 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam, dated 23.06.1993, as confirmed the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.224 of 1983, dated 31.10.1989, on the file of the District Musnif Court, Thirutharaipoondi.) The unsuccessful plaintiffs in the Courts below are the appellants in the above second appeal. The plaintiffs filed the suit for declaration of title and possession apart from rendering of accounts. The suit property is described as comprised in R.S.No.202/14 in 0.10 cents manai with thatched house bearing Door Nos.7 and 8, Thoothukudi Town and circle, Nagapattinam District, of course with boundaries on all the four sides. The plaintiff laid the case on the basis that the said properties were originally owned by Ramu Chettiar, husband of the first plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 to 4, and his purchase was under a registered sale deed dated 04.10.1939, marked as Ex.A-26 and he was in possession till his death in 1961 by residing in the said house. He is also stated to have mortgaged the said house, by way of Mortgage Deeds, on 11.04.1944 and 27.07.1943 marked as Exs.A-23 and A-24 respectively. It is the case of the plaintiffs that after the death of Ramu Chettiar, they were living in the said suit property. Since they had no one to support them, the first plaintiff's sister, who was in Assam took the plaintiffs and the fourth defendant to Assam leaving the house under the control of the two tenants. At the time when the plaintiffs went to Assam, they requested the first defendant, who is the sister of Ramu Chettiar, to collect the rent from the tenants and she has also leased out the house to various tenants. The second defendant is the son of another sister of Ramu Chettiar. The first defendant has also written many letters to the plaintiffs. Since the first defendant had no issues, she had brought up the second respondent as her adopted son.

(2.) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs, the first and second defendants have colluded with each other and created various documents taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiffs and in that way, a sale deed was obtained from one Suseela Rajagopalan in the year 1975 for the same land, but with the different survey number in respect of three cents without mentioning any boundaries. Inasmuch as, the said Suseela Rajagopalan is not the owner of the property, the second defendant, who has stated to have purchased the property from her cannot have any right. Even in respect of the suit property the second respondent has set up the title as if he has purchased the said property before 20 years that is on 20.05.1975. The plaintiff would also submit that in respect of the Rent Control Proceedings also, the second defendant has stated that he has acted as the Agent of the plaintiffs. The second defendant has obtained the change of the assessment from Panchayat in respect of the suit property in his name. Both the first and second defendants have not paid any amount of rent to the plaintiffs, even though they have collected the same from the tenants on behalf of the plaintiffs. The first and second defendants are liable to put the plaintiffs in possession and therefore, the suit has been filed.

(3.) ON an analysis of the entire evidence and appreciation of documents, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiffs, after giving a finding that the second defendant has been in possession, as seen in various documents filed on the side of the defendants, including Ex.B-70. It was as against the said judgment, the plaintiffs have filed the first appeal and the First Appellate Court also finding that there is no material irregularity or wrong appreciation of evidence etc., has dismissed the appeal against which the plaintiffs have filed the present second appeal.