RAJAMANIKKAM Vs. ABDUL RASHID

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree of the Additional Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai, dated 21.1.1999, made in A.S.No.62 of 1998, confirming the judgment and decree of the District Munsif Court, Sirkali, dated 7.11.1996, made in O.S.No.404 of 1995.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they have been arrayed in the original suit. The plaintiffs, who are the respondents in the present second appeal, had filed a suit in O.S.No.404 of 1995, before the District Munsif Court, Sirkali, praying for the relief of permanent injunction to restrain the defendants and their men from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff and the alternative relief of recovery of possession and for mesne profits stating that the suit property is a land having an extent of 0.56 cents in R.S.No.259/1,(Now R.S.No.259-1-B), in Koothiyampettai Village, Sirkali Taluk. The suit property had been purchased by the first plaintiff by a sale deed, dated 8.9.1971, and since then it has been in his peaceful possession and enjoyment. The patta, chitta and the adangal stand in the first plaintiff's name bearing patta No.42.

(3.) IN the written statement filed by the first defendant, which was adopted by the defendants 2 to 4, it has been stated that the defendants' father had purchased 0.52 cents of land in the suit survey Number by a sale deed, dated 22.7.1939. He had also got 61 cents in the same survey Number as a legal heir. After his death, his sons, namely, pavadai, Natesan, Murugesan and the first defendant had divided the property into four shares and they were in separate enjoyment of the same. Later Murugesan had sold his share of the property to the first plaintiff. Similarly, Thanam, wife of Natesan, had sold her share to the first plaintiff. Since the first plaintiff had been travelling to foreign countries pursuing his business activities, he had given his property to the first defendant for cultivation by an oral lease. As such, the first defendant has been cultivating the said land, along with his 28 cents of land situated adjacent to the suit property by putting up a fence treating the property as one unit.