M VENKAMMAL Vs. RATHINA UDAYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant herein. THE plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, possession and for damages of Rs.2,100. THE plaintiff got the property from Renga Reddy by a settlement deed dated 2.5.1970 which was settled on her in consideration of the love and affection which the settloer had and also her services rendered to him. Renga Reddy purchased the above property from Ammakannu Ammal and her sons by registered document dated 2.8.1962. Till the death of Renga Reddy he was in possession of the properties covered by the settlement deed. THE suit property is a portion of Survey No.2/2 and the total extent is about 2.08 acres. Out of this, the plaintiff leased out 83 cents to one Ponnuswamy Reddy under "guthagai muchilika" executed by him. THE said property was cultivated by the plaintiff for one year after the settlement. Next year, when she was away at a different village, the first defendant trespassed into the property and cultivated the same. He did not deliver possession and the first defendant contended that the property was purchased in the name of his wife, namely, the second defendant.

(2.) THE first defendant resisted the suit stating that Renga Reddy was never in possession of the property and also denied the settlement deed dated 2.5.1970 as well as the sale deed dated 2.8.1962. Ammakannu Ammal was not in possession and she was not the owner of the suit property at any time. She had no valid right or title to convey to Renga Reddy. THE plaintiff never cultivated the suit property. THE suit property belonged to Subramania Reddy, son of Kumarasamy Reddy. Kumarasamy Reddy was in possession and enjoyment for more than 20 years. THEreafter, the suit property fell to the share of Subramania Reddy and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same for more than the statutory period. Subramania Reddy sold the property to the second defendant under the sale deed dated 20.5.1972. Even since the date, they are in possession and enjoyment of the property.

(3.) THE points that arise for consideration are: (1)"Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration and recovery of possession. (2)"Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the damage for use and occupation. (3)"Whether the settlement deed dated 2.5.1970 and the sale deed dated 2.8.1962 are true, valid and binding. (4)"Whether the defendants have perfected title to the property by adverse possession. (5)"To what relief.