S MANI Vs. D DHANAJAYAN (DECEASED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants challenge the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court viz., Additional Sub-Court, Tiruvannamalai dated 20.12.2007 made in A.S.No.52 of 2006, whereby, the appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court viz., Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruvannamalai dated 25.04.2006 in O.S.No.55 of 2002.

(2.) The suit in O.S.No.55 of 2002 was filed by the respondent seeking a declaration of his title to the suit property and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession. The suit property is a vacant land measuring 8 feet East to West and 75 feet North to South bearing Door No.106, Bazar Street, Vettavalam Village, Tiruvannamalai District. According to the plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to his grandfather Sabapathi Achari, who died leaving behind five sons and two daughters viz., Dakshinamurthy Achari, Sivagnana Achari, Kannan Achari, Raja Achari and Jeyaraman Achari. A larger extent of property measuring 24 feet East to West and 75 feet North to South belonged to the grandfather of the plaintiff viz., Sabapathi Achari along with other land and properties in Kattukuppam Village in Pondicherry Union Territory.

(3.) According to the plaintiff, the said Sabapathi Achari even during his life time effected an oral partition and in the said partition the suit property was divided into three shares measuring 8 feet East to West and 75 feet North to South. The Eastern most portion was allotted to Dakshinamurthy Achari, father of the plaintiff, while the middle portion was allotted to Sivgnana Achari and western most portion was allotted to Kannan Achari. The other two sons viz., Raja Achari and Jeyaraman Achari were allotted landed property in Kattukuppam Village, Pondicherry and hence they were not given any share in the suit property at Vettavalam Village. It is also the claim of the plaintiff that Sivgnana Achari purchased the 1/3rd share that was allotted to Kannan Achari and hence Sivgnana Achari became entitled to 16 feet East to West x 75 feet North to south and the remaining 8 feet East to West x 75 feet North to South belonged to the plaintiff's father.