MUTHU GOUNDAR Vs. POOSARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S. No. 107 of 1982 on the file of the District Munsif, Mettur is the appellant in the above second appeal. He filed the said suit for permanent injunction against the defendants. The trial court after holding that since the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit he filed appeal before the lower appellate court and the same was also dismissed. Against the concurrent findings of both the courts below the unsuccessful plaintiff filed the present second appeal as stated above.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff is as follows: According to him an extent of 1 acre 10 cents in Survey No. 4/10 and another 2 acres in Survey No. 12/1 are the subject matter of the suit properties. The suit properties belongs to one Shanmugam. The said Shanmugam on 20.1.1979 leased out the suit properties in favour of the plaintiff for the lease amount of Rs. 300 per year. Further, he had also entered into an agreement of sale on 29.6.1981 for Rs. 15,000 from the said Shanmugam. While, such is the position the defendants who have no semblance of right in respect of the suit properties obstructed the plaintiff from his peaceful enjoyment which necessitated filing of the present suit.

(3.) The defendants filed a written statement wherein they have denied the statement that the plaintiff is in possession of the suit property and the agreement of sale between himself and one Shanmugam. It is stated that the entire Survey Nos. 4/10 and 12/1 initially . belonged to one Kandappa Chettiar, grand father of said Shanmugam as well as Kullammal. The said Kandappa Chettiar was incharge of eastern portion and the western portion was ; under the possession of Kuilammal. The eastern portion belonging to Kandappa Chettiar was leased out to various persons. From the said lands Shanmugam sold 2 acres to Chinnappan and 50 cents to plaintiff in 1971, On the other hand the said Kuilammal in the absence of any legal heir. dedicated her share in favour of Vellaeswarer Kovil. Thereafter the said lands were entrusted to the person doing service to the said temple. In this manner the suit properties were in enjoyment of the forefathers of the first defendant and thereafter first defendant was in enjoyment along with other Kothukarers. Hence according to the defendants the claim of plaintiff cannot be sustained; accordingly prayed for dismissal of the same.