DHANALAKSHMI(DECEASED) Vs. YOGESHWARAN (DECEASED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant in the present Appeal. Since she died during the pendency of the second appeal, her legal heir namely, her daughter Ranganayaki, has been brought on record in the Second Appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.131/1993 before the learned Additional District Subordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai, for a declaration of her title to the superstructure in the suit property and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property situate in S.No.465/1W of Sitharkadu Village, Mayiladuthurai Taluk. The main contention of the plaintiff is that the suit property belonged to Arulmigu Sambandaswamy Devasthanam, Sitharkadu, Mayiladuthurai that the said property was leased out to her by the said Devasthanam and that she was regularly paying rents for the same. According to the plaintiff she constructed a house in the suit property and also brought up the respondents/ defendants' who were them minors in the same house as their parents died. She has further prayed for a declaration of her title to the super structure of the suit property and also for a permanent injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment over the suit property.

(3.) The defendants 2 and 3 remained absent and were set exparte. The first defendant alone contested the suit by filing a written statement. The first defendant in his written statement has contended that the suit property was leased out to his father Narayanasamy, during the year 1959 and that he only constructed a super structure in the suit property. According to the first defendant since his father died in the year 1963 and their mother died during 1964, the plaintiff's mother late Valiammai took care of them and thereafter, the plaintiff, as a care taker, was managing the suit property. According to the first defendant, he filed a suit in OS.163/89 against the defendants 2 and 3 for partition of the suit property into three equal shares and to allot one such share to him and that the defendants 2 and 3 in collusion with the present plaintiff denied the lawful rights of the first defendant. It is also contended by him that since the plaintiff does not have any right over the suit property, the suit is liable to be dismissed.