G. SELVIN Vs. UCHIMALAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this second appeal is to the concurrent judgments passed in Original Suit No.28 of 1982, by the First Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai and in Appeal Suit No.54 of 2005, by the Subordinate Court, Kuzhithurai.

(2.) THE appellant herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.28 of 1982 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai, for the reliefs of declaration and recovery of possession, wherein the present respondent has been shown as the second defendant.

(3.) THE epitome of the averments made in the plaint may be stated like thus: The suit 'A' schedule property is originally belong to one Sankaralingom Pilla and he died intestate leaving behind him, his two sons namely Gopalakrishna Pilla and Vallinayagom Pilla. On 13.1.1975, Gopalakrishna Pilla has executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff under Document No.158 and on the same day, his brother by name Vallinayagom Pilla has executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff under Document No.159. On 9.5.1969, P. Valliyamma Pilla has executed a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff under Document No.1672. After purchase, mutation has been effected in the name of the plaintiff. Sankaralingom Pilla has permitted one Madan Pilla son of Paradesia Pilla, the father of the first defendant, to put up a shed in the suit 'A' schedule property and accordingly a shed has been put up in an extent of three quarters cent and after the demise of Madan Pilla, the first defendant has resided in the shed. On 10.12.1981, the defendants have demolished the old shed and abandoned their residence and thus their permissive possession has ceased to exist. On 13.12.1981, the defendants with the assistance of hooligans, have entered into the plaint 'B' schedule property and attempted to put up a new building. On 16.12.1981, the plaintiff has come to know that Kuzhithurai Municipality has given a fraudulent sanction to put up a new building in favour of the second defendant. On 17.12.1981, the plaintiff filed a petition before the Kuzhithurai Municipality to cancel the sanction order. Without perusing relevant documents and without conducting proper enquiry, the Municipal Commissioner has rejected the petition given by the plaintiff. On 21.12.1981, the plaintiff has issued a legal notice to the defendants and they issued a reply notice containing false allegations. The plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit 'A' schedule property. The suit 'B' and 'C' schedule properties are the part and parcel of the suit 'A' schedule property. The defendants are also making arrangements to cut and remove tamarind trees which are standing in 'B' schedule property. The defendants have no manner of right, title and interest over the suit 'B' and 'C' schedule properties. Under the said circumstances, the plaintiff has come forward with the present suit for the reliefs of declaration and recovery of possession in respect of the suit 'B' and 'C' schedule properties.