RAMALINGA REDDIAR Vs. BALARAMA REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of the Judgment of the lower Appellate Court decreeing the plaintiff's suit for declaration and Permanent Injunction and thereby reversing the Judgment of the lower Court. Unsuccessful Defendants are the appellants. For convenience, parties are referred as per their array in the suit.

(2.) PLAINTIFF is the son of one Kesava Reddiar through his second wife Thayarammal. Second Defendant is the wife of Sami Reddiar, who is son of Kesava Reddiar, through his first wife Saradhambal. Third Defendant is the son of the second Defendant. Case of plaintiff is that the suit property originally belonged to his mother Thayarammal and the said Thayarammal has settled the properties in favour of her sister Visalakshi and her husband Ranga Reddiar on 07.02.1944 under Ex.A-2 - Settlement Deed. Under the Settlement Deed, only a life estate was conferred upon the settlees and after the death of settlees, their heirs are to get the properties absolutely and in the absence of any heir, the property should be reverted back to the heirs of the settlor, viz., the plaintiff and his sisters, who are the legal heirs of Tharammal. It is the further case of plaintiff that the settlees died subsequently without any issues and as per the recitals in the Settlement Deed and the property devolved upon the plaintiff and his sisters and they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property as reversionary. Patta for the suit property stands in the name of plaintiff and the patta number is 216 and the plaintiff is paying kist for the suit property. Alleging that the first plaintiff attempted to trespass into the suit property, plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration of his title to the suit property " S.No.133/9 0.46 acres and for Permanent Injunction restraining the Defendant from interfering with plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

(3.) ON the above pleadings in the trial Court, four issues were framed. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence, the trial Court held that Ex.A-2 Settlement Deed was not acted upon and there is no document to show that the plaintiff had enjoyed the suit property. The trial Court arrived at the conclusion that the plaintiff failed to establish that he had been in possession of the suit property and the trial Court dismissed the plaintiff suit.