SANKARALINGAM ALIAS MICHAEL Vs. VELAYUDAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the Sub-Court, Tenkasi, confirming the judgment of the District Munsif Court, Sankarankoil. THE case of the respondent/plaintiff who filed a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, is as under: THE suit property originally belonged to one Irulandi and his minor brothers namely Krishnan and Raman and the said Irulandi sold it to the respondent/plaintiff's father Saathaan vide Ex.A.1 dated 22.09.1924 and the said Saathaan was in possession of the same and since his demise in the year 1950, the respondent/plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by way of storing waste materials and rearing and cutting Vela Karuvai trees for firewood therein; while so, the appellant/first defendant interfered with the respondent/plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property and despite lodging of a complaint with the police, continued to interfere with the respondent/plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property and hence, the suit.

(2.) THE appellant/first defendant filed his written statement contending that (i) the suit property was never owned by Irulandi and as such, he had no right to sell the same to the respondent/plaintiff's father and neither the respondent/plaintiff nor his father was in possession of the suit property; actually, the suit property belonged to one Irulandi who had two sons by name Sankaralingam and Raman; after the life of the said Irulandi, the western side of the suit property was inherited by Sankaralingam and the suit property was inherited by Raman; the said Sankaralingam had three sons, viz., Irulandi, Krishnan and Raman who do not have any right to sell the suit property; Irulandi and his brothers sold the western side of the suit property to one Muthupetchi; the suit property was in the possession and enjoyment of Raman who sold it to one Pechi on 25.11.1942 who in turn sold the suit property and a vacant land orally to the appellant/first defendant at Rs.45/- each in 1960 from which period, the appellant/ first defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by storing waste materials, rearing and cutting trees and by using it as a cattle-shed and as such, the suit property belongs to the appellant/first defendant.

(3.) THIS Court, based on the following substantial questions of law, admitted this Second Appeal: Whether the courts below are right in holding that the plaintiff had perfected title by adverse possession, in the absence of material evidence produced by him? Whether the courts below are right in placing the burden of proof on the appellant while admittedly the plaintiff has to prove his case? Whether the courts below are right in holding that the appellant has not proved the oral purchase?