CHINTHAMANI Vs. KARUPPIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant, in a suit in O.S.No.2 of 1997, instituted by the plaintiff/ first respondent for a decree of prohibitory injunction not to disturb latter's possession, having lost both before the trial Court as well as before the First Appellate Court in A.S. No.49 of 1998 on the file of District Court, Sivagangai, has preferred this appeal. The parties would be referred to by their rank before the Trial court.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is :

(3.) The first defendant in his written statement has pleaded that his father Karuppan Chettiyar and Karuppan Chettiyar's elder brother Arunachalam Chettiyar had kudivaram.(tenancy) rights in the suit property, that Arunachalam Chettiyar had the right over western half and Karuppah Chettiyar had right over the eastern half. Karuppan Chettiyar had been cultivating maize in his eastern half of the property, and on his death in 1990, his widow (defendant's mother) and his three sons which include the defendants have been cultivating maize as before and have been enjoying the property. So far as his uncle Arunachalam Chettiar's western half is concerned, after his death, his widow Valliammai and her two sons namely defendants 2 and 3 have sold their right over it, to plaintiff's son. In the portion purchased, plaintiff's son had put up a thatched house, that this was lost in fire whereupon a building was put up by him. So far as the eastern part of the suit property is concerned, the said property continues to be in the enjoyment of the first defendant and his brothers and the plaintiff has no manner of right or enjoyment, even if he had paid any B-memo charges, the same would not bind him.