R LATHA Vs. R GOVINDARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff is the appellant, who had filed the suit for declaration of the title to 'B' schedule suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same.

(2.) It is the case of the plaintiff is that one Balan, who is the father of the plaintiff, owned the suit property. He had encroached 'A' schedule property, which was classified as Natham Poromboke about 30 years ago and put up a thatched hut. Subsequently, he removed the thatched hut and constructed a pucca mangalore tiled house and obtained electricity service connection. As the plaintiff's father Balan had been in possession and enjoyment of 'A' schedule property in continuous and uninterrupted possession, Patta was also issued in favour of the said Balan. He had also been paying house tax, electricity charges for the house in respect of 'A' schedule property. The said Balan died on 07.01.2008 leaving being his wife Muniammal and daughters namely Chitra and the plaintiff and after his death, they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is stated that on 04.02008, there was a partition, in which, the plaintiff was alloted the central portion, measuring 1500 sq.ft., which is now described as 'B' schedule in the plaint. While so, the defendants 1 and 2 attempted to trespass into 'B' schedule property. Hence, the suit was filed.

(3.) The defendants 1 and 2 remained ex-parte and the defendants 3 and 4 had filed the written statement contending that there was no record to show that Balan was in possession of 'A' schedule property and the records were produced only for the year 199 It is stated that 'A' schedule property is not a Poromboke land, but it is a patta land. The third defendant is the wife and the fourth defendant is the son of Late Chinnasamy. The third defendant is the sister of the plaintiff's father Balan. It is further contended by the defendants 3 and 4 that the said Balan was only in permissive occupation of the suit property. Therefore, the partition alleged by the plaintiff cannot be true and valid and hence, sought for dismissal of the suit.