M RANGANATHAN Vs. V RAMASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is prefered by the first defendant against the judgment and decree of the first Appellate Court declaring the title of the suit property in favour of the plaintiffs.

(2.) The plaint averment is that the A and B schedule properties are mostly the ancestral properties. The title is perfected by prescription and adverse possession to the first plaintiff by name Venkatraman @ K.V.Raman. The said K.V.Raman had three sons and his elder son Narayanasamy pre-deceased him during his lifetime. Narayanasamy has released his rights in favour of the first plaintiff and the second plaintiff Ramasamy vide release deed dated 06.03.1968 and the first defendant is one of the witness to the said document. When the "B" schedule property and other properties came for auction, the first plaintiff purchased them in the name of the first defendant and the first defendant, acknowledging the same, has also executed a document dated 11.05.1969. While so, the first defendant without any right or title over the suit property, encroached upon the land and hence a separate suit had already been filed for declaration and possession. Since the first defendant has taken over the possession unlawfully, the present suit for declaration, possession and consequence relief for permanent injunction has been filed.

(3.) While filing suit, the first plaintiff had arrayed his three sons as defendants 2 to 4, but on the death of the plaintiff, the defendants were transposed as plaintiffs 2 to 4. The claim of the plaintiffs regarding possession and title was denied by the defendant. According to the first defendant, the "B" schedule properties originally owned by the father of the plaintiff, since he had revenue dues to the State, "B" schedule property and items 6 to 12 of "A" schedule property were brought on auction and same was purchased by the first defendant on 27.10.1963, and the sale was also confirmed. Since then the first defendant is in enjoyment of the "B" schedule property and other properties, which was purchased by him in the revenue sale. For the past 25 years, the first defendant is in enjoyment of the "B" schedule property and thereby he has also perfected the title. He has not executed a deed dated 11.05.1969 as alleged by the plaintiffs and already a suit for injunction filed by the defendant in O.S.No.919/97 has been allowed and injunction in respect of "B" schedule property has been made absolute in the interim application as early as 02.04.1988 in which, the plaintiff is one of the respondents and therefore, the present suit is not maintainable.