MARRIYAPPA NADAR Vs. GIRIJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.8/2013 dated 20.03.2014 on the file of the II Additional District Court, Tindivanam, reversing the judgment and decree in O.S.No.37/2004 dated 29.09.2011 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tindivanam.

(2.) The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in O.S.No.37 of 2004 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tindivanam. The appellant partly succeeded in the suit and filed A.S.No.8 of 2013 challenging the portion of the decree rejecting his claim. The First Appellate Court dismissed the First Appeal as well as dismissed the suit in entirety. Against the said judgment dated 20.03.2014, the present Second Appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiff.

(3.) The case of the appellant is that the first respondent is the mother of the second respondent. First respondent's grandfather Neelakanda Mudaliar was the owner of the suit property and other properties. First respondent's father Appadurai Mudaliar and his brother Singaravel Mudaliar are the sons of Neelakanda Mudaliar. They partitioned the joint family property by unregistered family arrangement dated 29.10.1959. The suit property was allotted to the father of the first respondent Appadurai Mudaliar. The father of the first respondent bequeathed the suit property by a registered will dated 02.08.1969 in favour of the first respondent. The first respondent by sale deed dated 12.12.1994 sold the property to the appellant for Rs. 25,000/- and agreed to clear encumbrance, if any found in title. The appellant borrowed monies from his friends for interest to purchase the suit property. The value of the suit property has increased in manifolds. When the appellant started construction of the house in the suit property, Sivagnanasambanda Mudaliar, son of Singaravel Mudaliar filed suit in O.S.No.949 of 1994 before Principal District Court, Tindivanam against the appellant claiming that the suit property belongs to him as the same was allotted to his father Singaravel Mudaliar in partition. He filed suit for declaration, injunction and obtained interim injunction. When the appellant contacted the first respondent, she promised the appellant that the property was allotted to her father and she has document to that effect and she will ask her paternal uncle Sivagnanasambanda Mudaliar to withdraw the suit and she will compensate the loss suffered by the appellant. She requested the appellant to contest the suit. The first respondent, in contrary, colluding with Sivagnanasambanda Mudaliar and the second respondent, gave evidence in O.S.No.949 of 1994 to the effect that they do not know about the property being allotted to the first respondent's father and they do not know the sale effected in favour of Ramalingam. Based on such evidence, the said suit in O.S.No.949 of 1994 was decreed. The appellant has filed appeal against the said judgment and decree. The appellant filed the present suit in O.S.No.37 of 2004 claiming Rs. 2,00,000/- being the loss suffered by him.