M S THANIGACHALA Vs. RUKMANI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant in O.S. 162 of 1976, District Munsif Court Sholinghur, is the appellant in this second appeal. That suit was instituted by the first respondent herein for a declaration of her title to the suit properties and for an injunction, or, in the alternative, for recovery of possession, against the appellant and respondents 2 and 3. The suit properties are two in number. The first respondent claimed title to the suit properties on the strength of a settlement deed executed by her brother, Linga Pillai, on 24-9-1971. According to the case of the first respondent, Linga Pillai was the absolute owner of the suit properties, having got them under a registered Will executed by one Pattammal on 15-4-1968. Pattammal, according to the first respondent, in turn obtained the suit properties under a partition deed dt. 21-10-1961 between the appellant, Pattammal and another. The further case of the first respondent was that the appellant had no manner of right or interest in the suit properties, but purported to execute sale deeds in favour of respondents 2 and 3 in respect of certain portions of the suit properties. Those sale deeds are not valid and binding on her, according to the first respondent. It was under these circumstances, the first respondent instituted the suit praying for the reliefs set out earlier.

(2.) Respondents 2 and 3 remained ex-parte. The appellant resisted the suit contending that Linga Pillai was not the owner of the suit properties and that he was not in possession and enjoyment of the properties at any time, that the settlement deed dt. 24-9-1971 is not true, that he sold certain properties to respondents 2 and 3 and that they had prescribed title by adverse possession. A plea was also raised that the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties.

(3.) Before the trial Court, on behalf of the first respondent Exs. A. 1 to A. 7 were filed and P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined, while, on behalf of the appellant Ex.B 1 to B 12 were marked and the appellant gave evidence as D.W. 1. On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the learned District Munsif found that the settlement deed dt. 24-9-1971 is true, valid and binding on the appellant, that it had been acted upon, that the suit is not bad for non-joinder of parties, that the appellant had not perfected title to the suit properties by adverse possession and further that the respondents 2 and 3 are not bona fide purchasers for value. On those conclusions, a decree was granted in favour of the first respondent declaring her title to the suit properties and for recovery of possession of the same. Aggrieved by this the appellant preferred an appeal in A.S.256 of 1978, District Court, North Arcot at Vellore. The lower appellate Court concurred with the conclusions of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. The appellant challenges in this second appeal the correctness of the same.