NARAYANASAMY GOUNDER Vs. K SEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 27. 4. 1995 passed by the Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai in O. S. No. 182 of 1989, which is a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession of house property. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their ligitative status before the trial Court.

(2.) NIGGARD and bereft of details, the case of the plaintiff as stood exposited from the plaint could be portrayed thus: (a) Plaintiff is the D1's daughter's son, so to say he is the maternal grant-son of D1. D2 is the son of D1. The plaintiff and D1 were doing jointly grocery business at Santhavasal Village from August 1982 till January 1988. Consequent upon the misunderstanding, which erupted between them, in conducting the business, the plaintiff stopped attending the joint business and the accounts between them are yet to be settled relating to it. (b) the plaintiff started his own independent business and earned money sufficiently and purchased from one K. Krishnamurthy, S/o. Konda Reddy vide Sale Deed dated 6. 11. 1996, the vacant site, which constituted the Eastern portion of the vendors larger extent of land. The Western portion was purchased by D1 from the very same Krishnamurthy. (c) The plaintiff and D1 bore the expenditure involved in making construction over the vacant site and it was constructed in such a manner that the Eastern portion of the building would constitute one Unit and the Western portion would constitute another unit. The plaintiff has been paying tax for the Eastern portion and enjoying it as full owner, in all aspects. (d) Since the plaintiff refused to marry the daughter of D2, bad blood started running in the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants and the latter unlawfully occupied the Eastern portion also, which necessitated the plaintiff to file the suit for declaration of title over the suit property and for delivery of possession, in addition to praying for mesne profits.

(3.) REMONSTRATING and refuting, gainsaying and contradicting the allegations/averments in the plaint, D2 filed the written statement, which was adopted by D1, the pith and marrow of it would run thus:-The relationship among the parties is an admitted one. The plaintiff did not have had the financial wherewithal to purchase the suit property as claimed by him and he had no business of his own. The plaintiff never spent any money for constructing the superstructure as claimed in the plaint. Barefaced lie as it is, that the plaintiff and D1 were doing joint family business. Even though the sale deed stands in the name of the plaintiff, nonetheless, the entire sale consideration was paid by the second defendant only and the plaintiff had not contributed anything for raising the construction over the suit property. D2 stood as surety for the grant of loan by the State Bank in the name of the plaintiff, which is indicative of the fact that D2 only raised money. Accordingly, the defendants prayed for the dismissal of the suit.