INDURANI (DIED) Vs. THIRAVIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The legal heirs of the first plaintiff, who are the plaintiffs 2 to 8 are the appellants herein. The suit is filed for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. There are two items of properties regarding which the declaration is sought for.

(2.) As per the plaint averments, the suit properties are vacant site belonging to the first plaintiff's father ancestrally. The first plaintiff had two other brothers by name Gnanasigamani and Masilamani. Masilamani died issueless. The first item of the property is 0.05 cents, of which 0.02 cents were released on 26.07.1931 by the brother of the first plaintiff viz., Gnanasigamani in favour of the first plaintiff and the other brother Masilamani. Out of the balance of 3 cents, 0.01-1/2 cents of land was sold by the first plaintiff's mother in favour of the first plaintiff on 20.03.1950. The said sale deed was attested by the father of the first plaintiff. As stated earlier, since the other brother of the first plaintiff viz., Masilamani died issueless, 0.01 cents belonging to him was also in the possession of the first plaintiff. After the death of the parents of the first plaintiff, the remaining 1-1/2 cents devolved upon the first plaintiff. Thus, the entire extent of 0.05 cents was in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. So far as the second item of the suit schedule is concerned, it is an extent of 0.04 cents. It was purchased by the first plaintiff's grandfather on 22.07.1913. It is stated that there was a partition between the first plaintiff's father and his brothers in the year 1926, as per which the second schedule 0.02 cents fell to the share of the first plaintiff's father and the same has been in possession and enjoyment of the first plaintiff, after the death of his father. As the defendants were trying to disturb the possession denying the title of the plaintiffs, the suit has been filed.

(3.) In the written statement, the defendants had denied all the contentions raised by the plaintiffs. According to the defendants, the first item of suit property was originally owned by one Mahalingam Nadar, who sold it to one Ponnusamy Nadar, who is the father of the first defendant. From the date of purchase, the property has been in the possession and enjoyment of the said Ponnusamy Nadar and now by the first defendant and his children. The plaintiffs have got no right or title over the suit properties and they were never in possession of the same at any point of time. The defendants further contended that the documents produced by the plaintiffs do not tally with the suit properties. Therefore, they prayed for dismissal of the suit properties.