T E JAGADEESAN Vs. T E THULASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2017 made in A.S.No.127 of 2017 on the file of Sessions Court, Magalir Neethi Mandram (Fast Track Mahila Court), Vellore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2016 made in O.S.No.11 of 2013 on the file of District Munsif Court, Katpadi, Vellore District.

(2.) The appellants are defendants and respondent is plaintiff in O.S.No.11 of 2013 on the file of District Munsif Court, Katpadi, Vellore District. The appellants are challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below. First appellant and respondent are brothers and the appellants 2 & 3 are sons of first appellant. The respondent filed said suit for declaration of title to the suit property and for recovery of possession.

(3.) According to the respondent, the suit property and other properties originally belonged to one Gnanammal, mother of the respondent and first appellant. She purchased the property by the deed of sale dated 29.11.1963 and out of love and affection, she bequeathed the suit property to the respondent and one another property to another son T.E.Vivekanandhan by the registered Will dated 04.11.1987. She had seven sons including respondent and first appellant and one daughter. The mother of the respondent and first appellant viz. Gnanammal died on 21.09.1998, the Will dated 04.11.1987 came into force and respondent became absolute owner of the suit property and other properties bequeathed to him by his mother. The first appellant was residing away from the Ponnai village, where the suit property is situate. After the first appellant came to Ponnai village in the year 2006, he requested the respondent to permit him to reside in the suit property till he gets accommodation in the village and agreed to vacate the suit property as and when required by the respondent. The respondent agreed for the same and permitted the first appellant to reside in the suit property. In the year 2012, when the respondent required the suit property, the appellants refused to vacate and handover the vacant possession to the respondent. Hence, the respondent filed the present suit for the reliefs stated above.