RAMALINGAM (DECEASED) Vs. KUPPIRUSAN (DECEASED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal against the decree and judgment in A.S.77 of 1994 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Villupuram, which reversed the decree and judgment in O.S.No.956 of 1990 on the file of the District Munsif, Villupuram.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, all parties are referred to by their original positions in the O.S.No.956 of 1990.

(3.) The plaintiff and the father of the defendants Rangasamy are brothers and properties in Melpatti Village were purchased in the name of the latter, as he was elder. The plaintiff and his brother Rangasamy mortgaged the property to one Santhan on 17.08.1951 (Ex.A3). The said Rangasamy created an usufructuary mortgage on 17.04.1959 in favour of one Sanyasi Gounder on properties, including those belonging to the plaintiff (Ex.A4). Subsequently, another usufructuary mortgage on 14.11.1968 (Ex.A5) was executed by the plaintiff in favour of one Appadurai and the said Rangasamy was an attestor. Thereafter, the mortgage was assigned in favour of one Chinnaiyan in 1974 and the plaintiff had discharged the debt, thereby establishing his right as the absolute owner for the suit properties. When the defendants tried to trespass into his property, the plaintiff caused a legal notice dated 19.02.1990 (Ex.A1), for which a reply dated 20.01990 (Ex.A2) was issued by the defendants containing false allegations. In the reply notice, there was a mention about oral partition between the plaintiff and the defendants' father Rangasamy, in which the first item of the suit property i.e. northern side 0.07 cents and the entire extent mentioned as the second item were given to the defendants' father is far from true. Despite the legal notice in 1990, the defendants tired to trespass into his property and hence the suit for declaration and recovery of possession and for mesne profits as far as the suit properties are concerned.