VASUDEVAN Vs. DHANALAKSHMI (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for bare injunction has preferred the above second appeal. The plaintiff had filed the suit against the defendant, based on the averments inter alia to the effect that the suit property was an ancestral property belonging to the plaintiff's father family. There was an oral partition in which the suit property was allotted to the share of the plaintiff's father. The plaintiff's brother was living in North India and he visited the suit property only occasionally. The plaintiff had been residing in the suit property for more than 26 years without any interruption from anybody. As he had been living there for more than the required statutory period, he had also claimed perfected title by adverse possession. While so, the first defendant had objected to the issuance of patta in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit has been filed.

(2.) The suit was resisted by the first defendant contending that the suit property originally belonged to one Nadu Nayakkar, who had executed a Will on 03.10.1960. The said Nadu Nayakkar had four sons. As per the Will, 'A' schedule was allotted to Duraisamy; 'B' Schedule was allotted to Radhakrishnan; 'C' schedule was allotted to the plaintiff's father; and 'D' schedule was allotted in favour of one Ramajeyam. The 'B' schedule allottee Radhakrishnan died when he was in Sri Lanka. He had left a Will bequeathing the property in favour of the first defendant and one Kannammal. Kannammal is also living in Sri Lanka. Therefore, she gave away her right in the suit property in favour of the first defendant. The plaintiff's father had requested the defendants to stay in the suit property till such time they construct a new house in the property allotted to their share. Accordingly, the defendants permitted the plaintiff to be in the suit property. Taking advantage of the same, the plaintiff is claiming right and title to the suit property and also claims right by adverse possession which is mutually contradictory. Hence, she sought for dismissal of the suit.

(3.) Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself was examined as PW1 and the other witnesses were examined as PWs.2 and 3 and Exs.A1 to A12 were marked. On the side of the defendants, the first defendant herself was examined as DW1 and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked. The trial Court, on the above facts and evidences, decreed the suit. However, on appeal by the defendants, the suit was dismissed.