JALAJA KUMARI Vs. THAYARAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this second appeal is made by the defendants against the judgment and decree dated 03.08.2010 passed in A.S. No. 63 of 2006 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Chenglepet reversing the judgment and decree dated 20.04.2006 made in O.S. No. 160 of 1997 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chenglepet.

(2.) The suit has been laid by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows: The plaintiff purchased "Inam Punjai" Survey No.50/1 of an extent of 0.04 cents from one Kannammal under a registered sale deed dated 11.09.1959. On the northern side of the said property an extent of 0.18 cents was there belonging to Bodi Maistry Vagaiyara, who sold the same for a sum of Rs.55.00 to the plaintiff in 1960 and as the sale consideration is less than Rs.100.00 no sale deed was taken. Subsequently, the plaintiff has also purchased an extent of 0.05 cents on the further northern side of the above said property in survey No.50/1F1C 'Inam Punjai' from Bodi Maistry Vagaiyara and others under a registered sale deed dated 04.10.1977. The above said properties are in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff as one block. One T.G. Subramanian Ganapadigal has purchased another 0.10 cents in Survey No.50/1F1C out of 0.47 cents (old Survey 50/1) from Kannaiah Maistry @ Kanaikan Maistry S/o Krishnappa Maistry on 05.02.1974. In the above said sale deed, the suit property and the northern side of the suit property purchased by the plaintiff has been shown as the Eastern boundary. The suit property is an Inam land. The plaintiff is paying necessary inam charges to the Government and after the abolition of Minor Inams under Minor Inam (Abolitions and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1963, Ryotwari patta was issued to the plaintiff bearing No.137. The plaintiff has been paying kists for the suit property. UDR patta was also given to the plaintiff in respect of the suit property and the other properties bearing No.317, the plaintiff also obtained new patta, for the suit property after the original patta was misplaced. While so, the defendants, without any authority, right or title over the suit property, attempted to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property and the plaintiff has applied for encumbrance certificate and it revealed nil encumbrance over the suit property. However, as the defendants unlawful acts persisted, the plaintiff has been necessitated to institute the suit for necessary reliefs.