MARUTHAI PANDARAM Vs. ANGAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is directed against the Judgment and decree dated 20.12.2013 passed in O.S.No.105 of 1998 by the District Munsif Court, Thuraiyur as confirmed in A.S.No.32 of 2016 [A.S.No.41 of 2014 on the file of Sub Court (Camp), Thuraiyur] vide Judgment and decree dated 10.07.2017, by the Sub Court, Thuraiyur.

(2.) The appellant herein is the first defendant in O.S.No.105 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Thuraiyur. The respondents 1 to 5 are plaintiffs. Suit is for declaration and possession in respect of 'A' schedule property and mesne profits for use and occupation till handing over of possession.

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs who are respondents herein is that the property morefully described under Schedule 'A', 'B' and 'C' annexed to the plaint originally owned by Maruthai Pandaram. He had three sons, first by name Subban Pandaram, second by name Muthaiah Pandaram and third by name Angusamy. During the lifetime of Maruthai Pandaram, brothers divided the suit schedule property among themselves through panchayat. Subban Pandaram was allotted 'A' schedule property, Muthaiah Pandaram was given 'B' schedule property and Angusamy was given 'C' schedule property. Subban Pandaram is the first plaintiff in the suit, who died pending suit and his legal heirs are impleaded as plaintiffs 2 to 6. The first defendant, Maruthai Pandaram is the son of Muthaiah Pandaram. The second defendant is the third son of Maruthai Pandaram. The case of the plaintiffs is that the brothers have divided the property among themselves and were enjoying the respective portions without any disturbance for nearly 15 years. Muchalika also entered between them on 12.07.1975 indicating the division of property. While so, the first plaintiff left the village to make his earning at Nakireddipatty permitting his brothers to occupy 'A' schedule portion of the house. 10 years prior to suit, the second defendant vacated the house after constructing a new house in his land and started living in his new house. In the said circumstances, Muthaiah, father of the first defendant alone was occupying the suit schedule property. He promised to vacate 'A' schedule portion after the marriage of his daughters. However, on 05.01.1998, he died without handing over the possession of 'A' schedule property to the plaintiff. After the death of his father Muthaiah, the first plaintiff refused to vacate 'A' schedule portion of the house. Hence, after exchange of legal notices, the suit for declaration, possession and mesne profits has been instituted as against the first defendant.