ABDUL MAJID Vs. THAJUL HUTHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed in A. S. No. 72 of 1993, on the file of the Sub-Court, mayiladuthurai, dated 28. 8. 1995, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 14. 9. 1992, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sirkali in O. S. No. 509 of 1982.

(2.) THE defendant in O. S. No. 509 of 1982 is the appellant in the present second appeal. THE plaintiff had filed the said suit before the district Munsif, Sirkali, seeking recovery of vacant possession of the suit property, and for payment of a sum of Rs. 350/- being value of the trees, rs. 900/- towards damages for use, Rs. 25/- per month from the date of the plaint till the date of recovery and costs.

(3.) THE brief averments in the written statement are as follows: THE defendant denied all the allegations in the plaint except those which were specifically admitted therein. THE suit property, at no point of time, belonged to Raja Mohammad or the plaintiff. It is a Government natham poramboke. THE house site was trespassed by the defendant, on 15. 6. 1959. THE defendant had fenced it and from then onwards, he had been in enjoyment of the same. Neither Raja Mohammad nor his mother ever purchased the suit property. Raja Mohammad had not been in enjoyment of the suit site. THE above sale was not truly created for proper consideration. Raja Mohammad was not with sound mind. THE said sale will not bind the defendant. THE defendant was not a party to the proceedings either in O. S. No. 219 of 1965 or A. S. No. 47 of 1972. THE defendant does not know anything of the same. THE allegations in para 3 of the plaint were denied. On 15. 1. 1965, the plaintiff was not in enjoyment of the suit site. THE defendant had fenced the site and was in enjoyment and possession right from 15. 6. 1969. It is not correct to say that Deen Mohammad was taking care of the property on behalf of the defendant. THE defendant is renewing the fence every year. THE defendant had not cut down any tree as alleged. THE Plaintiff and the defendant have no enmity between them. No complaint was given against the defendant. THE defendant need not pay Rs. 200/-on the allegation that he cut down the tree. No trespass, as alleged in para 6 of the plaint, had ever happened. THE defendant did not remove the fence. He did not permit Shamsuddin into the suit property. THE defendant does not know pakkirisha. He did not send any reply notice. Suit has not been properly valued. Hence, the suit has to be dismissed with costs.