O S K DAVID Vs. L RETHINAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant in the above second appeal. The suit was filed for injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the usufructs by the plaintiff from the suit property.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, the suit property is a portion of the Government promboke land situated in Survey No.693/20. One A.M.Raman was given permission by the Tahsildar, Ramnad, vide "B" memo order No.637/78, to rear the coconut trees and to enjoy the usufructs of the same with respect to 2 acres and 50 cents. The said Raman sold the property to one Victor Boopalaroyar by way of two registered sale deeds dated 23.04.1975 and 08.10.1975. According to the plaintiff, though in the said sale deeds the land on which the coconut trees were standing also included, what was actually transferred was only the right of enjoyment of the usufructs as the land belongs to the Government. The said Victor Boopalaroyar sold the suit property to one S.Karuppaiah on 07.02.1985. Thereafter, the said Karuppaiah sold the same on 21.10.1988 to the defendant. The defendant, in turn, sold the suit property including the coconut trees, coconut saplings along with 5 HP diesel motor, to the father of the plaintiff through an unregistered sale deed, dated 07.11.1990. The sale gave only the right to enjoy the usufructs of the coconut trees and hence, it is stated that the registration was not done. The father of the plaintiff had put up a hut in the middle of the suit property and obtained electricity supply and was paying the charges till his death. After his death, the plaintiff, being a legal heir, succeeded to enjoy the usufructs of the suit coconut trees and has been paying the "B" memo charges to the Government. As the defendant has been trying to interfere with the peaceful possession, the suit has been filed.

(3.) Denying all the averments stated in the plaint, a written statement was filed by the defendant. It is the case of the defendant that the unregistered sale deed will not confer any right on the plaintiff over the suit property. In fact, the defendant had appointed the wife of the plaintiff as his Power of Attorney with respect to the suit property on 27.03.2002. The said Power of Attorney was, later, cancelled on 06.09.2007. Thus, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.