(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, Villupuram, dated 30.04.1996, made in A.S.No.151 of 1994, reversing the judgment and decree of the District Munsif, Thirukoilur, dated 28.02.1994, made in O.S.No.759 of 1986.
(2.) THE plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.759 of 1986 is the appellant in the present second appeal. THE suit had been filed by the plaintiff for the relief of declaration and for permanent injunction against the defendants who are the respondents in the present second appeal.
(3.) IN the written statement filed by the third defendant and adopted by the defendants 2 and 4, the claims made by the plaintiff have been denied. It has been stated that the suit properties had not belonged to Valambu Ammal, exclusively. The sale deed, dated 27.11.1954, executed in favour of the plaintiff's father is not valid in law. The plaintiff has not been in enjoyment of the suit properties after the death of his father. The plaintiff has been employed in the Corporation at Delhi even before the death of his father. The suit properties had belonged to one Iyyasamy the father of the 5th defendant and he has been in enjoyment of the suit properties and he had died nearly 30 years back. The 5th defendant and Valambu Ammal are his daughters. IN order to defeat the rights of the 5th defendant in the suit properties Valambu Ammal had executed the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. On 01.08.1962, one Vembu Ammal, Valambu Ammal and the 5th defendant had partitioned the suit properties along with the other properties. Accordingly, 0.02 cent in the first item of the suit property had been allotted to the 5th defendant. The first defendant who is the father of the 3rd defendant had purchased the said properties, on 22.06.1982, for a sum of Rs.976/-. Since then the father of the 3rd defendant and the third defendant have been in enjoyment of the properties and they have been paying the kist for the properties. Since the third defendant's father and his ancestors had been in the enjoyment of the suit properties for the past 24 years, they have got title over the properties by adverse possession. The allegation that the defendants had encroached upon the suit properties, on 14.9.1986, had been denied. The third defendant's father had been in enjoyment of the suit trees forming the fence in the 0.33 cent of the property purchased by him. The suit property is not in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff is to be dismissed with costs.