M VIVEKANANDAN (DIED) Vs. V KARUPPAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.203 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Ramanathapuram is the appellant herein. The said suit in O.S.No.203 of 1996 was dismissed by Judgment and Decree, dated 03.12.1998. As against that, the plaintiff filed Appeal Suit No. 60 of 1999. That appeal was also dismissed by Judgment and Decree dated 28.01.2000 by the Additional District Sessions Judge cum Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ramanathapuram. Challenging that Judgment, the plaintiff has filed the present second appeal.

(2.) Pending the second appeal, the plaintiff died and his legal representatives had been brought on record as appellants 2 to 6. The second defendant who was the second respondent in the appeal also died and his legal representatives have been brought on record as respondents 3 and 4.

(3.) O.S.No.203 of 1996 had been filed by the plaintiff Vivekanandan against two defendants namely, Karuppaiah and Pandi seeking a Judgment and Decree for declaration of title over the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession. The suit property is vacant land measuring 0.52.0 ares in S.No.98/1, Patta No.847, Peruvaiyal village, Devipattinam, Ramanathapuram District. The plaintiff claimed that the suit property originally belonged to Muthuirulappan Servai. The suit property and the property to the South of it were originally one whole splot. Muthuirulappan Servai was granted Patta during the Samasthanam period. He created a mortgage in favour of Ramu Konar on 12.07.1952. After his death, the plaintiff and the plaintiff's three brothers namely, Naganathan, Manivannan, and Dhandapani took possession of the property as legal heirs of Muthuirulappan Servai. The plaintiff claimed that he had filed the suit on behalf of his brothers also. He paid taxes for the property. During the survey and settlement period, patta was wrongly granted in the name of Subbiah Servai. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants had no right in the property. Initially patta was granted to the plaintiff by the District Revenue Officer. An appeal was filed before the District Revenue Officer. The matter was again remanded to the District Revenue Officer. He cancelled the patta. Since the property was under the continuous enjoyment of the plaintiff, he had filed the present suit seeking declaration and injunction.