GANESAN Vs. S SHANTHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in O.S.No.149 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pattukottai is the appellant. He is suffered a decree in the trial Court and his appeal filed before the Sub Court, Pattukottai in A.S.No.538 of 2009 was also dismissed. He had filed the present second appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff, S.Shanthi had filed the suit seeking declaration of title and recovery of possession and for costs of the suit. According to the plaintiff, she had purchased 15 cents of land from C.Ananda Rao, by a registered sale deed dated 28.08.2005. C.Ananda Rao also had other lands and he had sold 16 cents to Vasantha W/o. Rajendran and another 16 cents to Anjalai, W/o. Marimuthu. In the lands purchased by the plaintiff, there was a tiled house. The defendant had obtained permission from C.Ananda Rao to reside in the said house about 10 years before. Since the plaintiff wanted to demolish the house, it was not reflected in the sale deed. However, the plaintiff was called upon to pay additional registration charges for the value of the house. The plaintiff stated that the defendant must to vacate and hand over the possession to her. She had issued a notice to the defendant. He refused to receive the notice. It is under these circumstances, the said suit had been filed for declaration of title and for recovery of possession. Along with the suit, the plaintiff filed the original sale deed, dated 28.10.2005 and the receipt of payment of additional registration charges and other documents.

(3.) In the written statement, the defendant claimed that he had been in possession from 1986 after constructing the house in the suit property. He then received grant from the Central Government and also from the Panchayat and renovated the house. He stated that the Old D.No was 164/A and the New D.No. was 3/484. He had also obtained voter identity card as proof of his residence in the house. He claimed that he was in possession of the suit property for the past 20 years. He claimed that in view of his continuous possession, the plaintiff cannot claim any right over the suit property and consequently sought dismissal of the suit.