FRANCOISE ARMANDLE @ FRANCOISE ANNIETOSETTE Vs. RAMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 20.03.2018 made in A.S.No.36 of 2016 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Tindivanam, reversing the judgment and decree dated 18.04.2016 made in O.S.No.3 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Vanur.

(2.) The appellant is first defendant, first respondent is plaintiff and second respondent is second defendant in O.S.No.3 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Vanur. The first respondent filed said suit for declaration that the suit property belongs to him and for permanent injunction restraining the appellant and second respondent from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. According to the first respondent, his father Kuppan was cultivating tenant under one Mohammed Beevi some 40 years of back on the date of filing of the suit. Mohammed Beevi died 30 years before and first respondent's father Kuppan was cultivating tenant under one Mohammed Atali 20 years earlier to filing of the suit. First respondent's father originally purchased the suit property from Mohammed Atali, son of Mohammed Beevi for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- and from the date of purchase, father of the first respondent was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The said Kuppan had planted coconut saplings and now there are 350 coconut trees in the suit property. To prove the title of the first respondent's father, first respondent filed chitta, adangal and FMB sketch. The first respondent's father by the Will dated 29.07.2002 bequeathed the suit property to the first respondent. After the death of his father, first respondent became the absolute owner of the suit property and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The appellant and second respondent on 05.12011 tried to interfere with the possession of the first respondent and hence he has filed the suit for the above stated reliefs.

(3.) The appellant filed written statement and it was adopted by the second respondent. The appellant and second respondent denied title of the first respondent and contended that they are the owners of the suit property by purchase from the original owner. Along with the written statement, they filed 15 documents to substantiate their contentions in the written statement.