INNASI UDAYAR Vs. S CHINNASAMY RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent herein filed O. S. No. 1 of 1963 on the file of the Court of the subordinate Judge of Dindigul for a declaration of his title to the lands described in the plaint schedule and for recovery of possession thereof from the defendants with past and future profits. Originally, there were 24 defendants to the suit and by Order dated 6-4-1963 the second defendant was struck off, on the plaintiff giving him up, with the result that defendants 1 and 3 to 24 remained as contesting parties to the suit. According to the respondent, the lands described in the plaint were situate in the village of Narasingapuram, Kandamanickanur Zamin, periayakularn Taluk, and the said Zamin had been taken over by the State of madras under the Madras Act 26 of 1948; the suit lands originally belonged to one g. V. Ramaswami and three others and they were comprised in patta No. 9 in the village of Narasingapuram; the respondent purchased the lands from the owners under an oral sale and also obtained possession; the landlord recognised the transfer in favour of the respondent and also directed the transfer of the suit lands from patta No. 9 to Patta No. 110 in the name of the respondent by order dated 16-9-1950; after the abolition of the Zamin, the Government who took over the whole Estate had granted ryotwari patta No. 490 in favour of the respondent with respect to the suit lands; about three years ago the defendants, who had no manner of right, title or interest in the suit lands, forcibly trespassed into the lands and they were cultivating the lands, indiscriminately in various bits, despite the respondent's protest. The case of the respondent, therefore, was that the defendants were liable to deliver possession of the properties to the respondent and also to pay mesne profits. 'it is pertinent to point out that the respondent stated in the plaint that the cause of action for the suit arose in 1950 when the respondent became the owner of these lands and in 1959 when the defendants in a body trespassed on the suit lands and occupied them.

(2.) A detailed written statement was filed by defendants 6 and 10, which was adopted by defendants 1, 3, 4, 8, 9 and 11 to 22. Subsequently, defendants 4. 11, 18 and 20 also filed an additional written statement. In the written statement the defendants contended that the respondent had neither title nor possession; the suit lands did not belong to the respondent's alleged vendors, namely, G. V. Ramaswami Naidu and three others; the alleged oral sale pleaded by the respondent was not true; even if true, it was not valid, as it was not in writing and registered; the defendants and their predecessors-in-title have valid title and have been in possession in their own right for a long number of years; the alleged trespass was not true; the plaint was defective due to lack of particulars regarding the exact portions occupied by each of the defendants, the date of alleged trespass etc. ; and therefore, the respondent was not entitled to declaration, possession or mesne profits. The averments contained in paragraph 10 of the written statement filed by defendants 6 and 10 are significant. They had stated there:

(3.) ON these pleadings the learned Subordinate Judge framed eleven issues and those that are relevant for the present purpose are:-