LAWS(MAD)-2018-6-19

SOLOMEN (DECEASED) Vs. KANAKARAJ(DECEASED)

Decided On June 04, 2018
Solomen (Deceased) Appellant
V/S
Kanakaraj(Deceased) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff Solomen in O.S.No.125/95 is the appellant in S.A.Nos.368 and 369 of 2003. The plaintiff Kanakaraj in O.S.No.129/95 is the appellant in S.A.No. 513/2003. The defendant Ramalingam in O.S.No.125/95 is the appellant in S.A.No.514/2003.

(2.) O.S.No.125/95 has been laid by Solomen for declaration, permanent injunction or in the alternative for recovery of possession and mesne profits. The case of Solomen, in brief, is that the suit property belongs to Balakrishnan son of Chockalingam ancestrally and Balakrishnan enjoyed suit property by putting up a thatched shed and the said thatched shed later got dilapidated and Balakrishnan's ancestors had been enjoying the suit property by keeping cattle etc., in the suit property and accordingly, on account of the long and continuous possession of the suit property by Balakrishnan and his ancestors, they had prescribed title to the suit property by way of adverse possession and the defendant, accepting the title of Balakrishnan in respect of the suit property, had also obtained a mortgage in respect of the suit property from Balakrishnan and the said mortgage had been discharged later and accordingly, the plaintiff Solomen had purchased the suit property from Balakrishnan by way of a sale deed dated 05.09.88 and on that basis, endeavoured to put up a new construction in the suit property and while so, the defendant, without any authority, attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property and hence, the suit for appropriate reliefs.

(3.) The case of the defendant Ramalingam, in brief, is that the suit laid by the plaintiff is not maintainable either in law or on facts. It is false to state that the suit property belonged to Balakrishnan son of Chockalingam and that he had enjoyed the suit property by putting up a thatched shed etc., and it is false to state that Balakrishnan's ancestors enjoyed the suit property by keeping cattle etc., and it is false to state that on account of long, continuous possession and enjoyment, Balakrishnan and his ancestors had prescribed title to the suit property by way of adverse possession. Further, it is false to state that the suit property had been acquired by the plaintiff from Balakrishnan by way of a sale deed dated 05.09.88 and that the plaintiff has endeavoured to put up a construction in the suit property. The suit property does not belong to Balakrishnan and his ancestors as put forth in the plaint and therefore, the claim of title to the suit property by the plaintiff on the basis of the sale effected by Balakrishnan in his favour is false and not binding upon the defendant and on the other hand, the suit property belongs to Narayanasamy Chettiar ancestrally and after his demise, his son Dhanapal chettiar was enjoying the suit property and after Dhanapal chettiar, his son Govindasamy and wife Kamalammal acquired the suit property and enjoying the same and thereafter, they sold the suit property to one Kanakaraj and thus, the suit property does not belong to the plaintiff and therefore, the plaintiff cannot lay any claim of interest or right in respect of the suit property and on the other hand, inasmuch as the plaintiff without any authority attempted to put up construction to an extent of 10 feet in the common battai situated to the west of the suit property, the defendant and others prevented the same. Balakrishnan secured loan from the defendant by mortgaging the property and the defendant, without verifying the contents of the mortgage deed, based on the confidence reposed on Balakrishnan, accepted the mortgage deed and tendered the amount under the mortgage deed and the boundaries given in the mortgage deed are not correct and the property comprised in the mortgage deed does not belong to Balakrishnan and the suit is liable to be dismissed.