SUBRAMANIAN Vs. MANNANGATTI (DECEASED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.216 of 1986 and the defendant in O.S.No.315 of 1986 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Kallakurichi has filed these appeals in S.A.No.494 of 1999 and S.A.No.495 of 1999 respectively. During the pendency of these appeals, the first respondent Mannangatti died and his legal heirs have been impleaded as respondents 2 to 9 in A.S.No.494 of 1999.

(2.) The case of the Appellant Subramaniyan, who is the plaintiff in O.S.No.216 of 1986 is briefly as follows. The plaintiff and the father of the first defendant are brothers. The plaintiff's grand father Kullan had two wives. The plaintiff's father was born through the first wife of Kullan, while the first defendant was born through his second wife. One Poondian, the brother of Kullan had a daughter by name Muniammal. Poondian also had two sons by name Duraisamy and Swaminathan. Muniammal executed a sale deed dated 13.11957 (Ex.A3) in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. The first defendant Mannangatti got a registered sale deed dated 07.01.1948 (Ex.A2) in respect of the suit property executed in his favour by the sons of Poondian. Therefore, the plaintiff's father asked the first defendant to execute a deed in his favour. The first defendant, who admitted title and possession of the plaintiff's father, executed a settlement deed dated 17.11973 (Ex.A4) in favour of the plaintiff's father. He got the patta transferred in his name and also paid land revenue as evidenced by Ex.A5 to Ex.A8. The plaintiff's son (2nd appellant) also dealt with the property by executing a mortgage deed dated 17.10.1981 (Ex.A7) in favour of one Subbammal. According to the plaintiff, in the sale deeds dated 05.03.1965 (Ex.A9), 14.05.1964 (Ex.A13) and 24.08.1960 (Ex.A17), the boundary descriptions would show that the suit property was already conveyed to the plaintiff's father Chinnapaiyan and that he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Therefore, the appellant/ plaintiff has prayed for declaration of his title over the suit property and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

(3.) The respondents/defendants resisted the suit by filing a written statement, in which they have contended that the suit property does not belong to the plaintiff and that a partition took place in their family about 40 to 42 years back. According to them, the suit property was purchased by the first defendant during the year 1948 and the said property also belonged to the defendants 2 to 5, who are the co-parceners in the joint family and therefore, the first defendant does not have any right to execute a settlement deed dated 17.12.1973 (Ex.A4) in favour of the plaintiff's father. It is also their contention that Muniammal, who executed the sale deed dated 112.1957 (Ex.A3) in favour of the plaintiff's father had no right to execute the sale deed in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff's father had grabbed the suit property from the first defendant by way of settlement deed Ex.A4, which is not valid. They have therefore, prayed for the dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff.