PERIYANAYAGAM Vs. KARUPPIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by Judgment in A.S.No.12/2002 dated 06.02.2006 reversing the Judgment of trial Court in O.S.No,25/2000 and thereby decreeing Respondent-Plaintiff's suit for declaration and permanent injunction, Defendant has preferred this Second Appeal.

(2.) CASE of Respondent-Plaintiff is that his father Ganesan purchased suit properties in S.F.Nos.277/14A and 277/18A along with other properties under Ex.A1 sale deed [15.7.1964]. Further case of Plaintiff is that a canal divides the properties of Plaintiff and Defendant and Ex.A1 sale deed mistakenly refers the extent purchased as 33 cents in S.F.No,277/14 and 21 cents in S.F.No,277/18 whereas the actual extent purchased was 37 cents in S.F.No,277/14 and 40 cents in S.F.No,277/18. Further case of Plaintiff is that as per Exs.A3 and A12, revenue records were also mutated infavour of Plaintiff's father Ganesan for the said extent of 37 cents and 40 cents respectively. According to Plaintiff, his father Ganesan had been in possession and enjoyment of the entire properties - 37 cents in S.F.No,277/14A and 40 cents in S.F.No,277/18A. Stating that Plaintiff and his brother Rajamanickam are in continuous possession and enjoyment of the suit properties for more than the statutory period and that Plaintiff has perfected title by adverse possession, Plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction.

(3.) UPON consideration of oral and documentary evidence, trial Court held that Ex.A2 is the Chitta issued in the name of Plaintiff's father Ganesan and Defendant's mother Pachayammal and therefore, Plaintiff cannot be said to have established right in S.F.No,277/14A - 37 cents and S.F.No,277/18A - 40 cents. Trial Court further held that another co-owner, Plaintiff's brother [Rajamanickam] has not been impleaded as Plaintiff and the suit is not maintainable. Referring to Ex.B19 decree in O.S.No.1830/1973, trial Court held that even in 1975, Defendant's mother's right in S.F.No,277/14 - 47 cents and S.F.No,277/18 - 61 cents was upheld. Trial Court negatived Plaintiff's contention that he is bound by the Judgment in O.S.No.1830/1973 and on those findings, trial Court dismissed Plaintiff's suit.