THANGAVELU @ VELU Vs. CHINTHAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE concurrent judgments passed in Original Suit No.48 of 1999 by the District Munsif Court, Devakottai and in Appeal Suit No.9 of 2002 by the Subordinate Court, Devakottai are now under challenge.

(2.) THE respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.48 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Devakottai, for the reliefs of declaration and recovery of possession, wherein the present appellants have been shown as defendants.

(3.) IT is averred in the plaint that the suit property belongs to the first plaintiff. The first plaintiff has purchased the same under a registered sale deed dated 2.6.1961 from one Muthu Thevar. At the time of purchase, the suit property was a punja land. In pursuance of the sale deed which stands in the name of the first plaintiff, patta has been issued in his name and in the U.D.R. scheme another patta has been issued in the name of the first plaintiff. In a portion of the suit property, the first plaintiff has put up a thatched house and the remaining portion of the suit property is being used as appurtenant to the house which situates in the suit property. The second defendant is the mother of the first defendant. The defendants 1 and 2 have taken the suit property for monthly rent and they paid an advance of Rs.500/ -. The deed dated 30.11.1976 is not a mortgage deed. The first plaintiff has erroneously filed Original Suit No.267 of 1986 for redemption of the suit property on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sivaganga and the said suit has been dismissed. Against the judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No.267 of 1986, an appeal has been preferred. During the pendency of the same, the first plaintiff has filed a memo for not pressing the suit, with liberty to file a fresh suit and the same has been ordered accordingly. During the pendency of the present suit, the first plaintiff has passed away and the second plaintiff has been added as the legal representative of the first plaintiff. Since the defendant have denied the title of the plaintiff and since they are in possession and enjoyment of the same as tenants, the present suit has been instituted for the reliefs indicated supra.