THIAGARAJAN Vs. D MEENAKSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants who suffered a decree for permanent injunction at the hands o the plaintiff throughout prefers the present second appeal.

(2.) THE plaintiff would contend that he got the suit properties under the oral partition that took place in his family on 08.07.1960. He has been in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property doing agricultural operation therein. THE defendants who are adjacent owners of the suit property who have no right or interest therein attempted to trespass upon the suit property. Having thus contended the plaintiff sought for permanent injunction as against the defendants. THE defendants resisted the contentions of the plaintiff on the ground that the suit properties were purchased by the defendants from the legal heirs of Jeevarathinam Ammal and Janakiraman Chettiyar who purchased the suit properties in the court auction sale brought by one Pakkiri Chettiyar having obtained a decree in the cases in Small Causes no.144 of 1960 and 114 of 1960 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Cuddalore. Janakiraman Chettiyar and Jeevarathinam Ammal having purchased the suit properties under court auction sale got delivery of these properties through court and they have been in possession of the same. THE defendants having purchased the suit properties from the legal heirs of the purchasers through court auction sale have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. THEy have also set up a plea that they have prescribed title by adverse possession as they have been in possession and enjoyment of the property for more than 12 years.

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the defendants would submit that there was no pleadings that fraud was played upon in the execution proceedings which culminated in the issuance of delivery receipt. Exhibit A10 does not relate to the suit property in as much as the boundaries of the properties referred to in Exhibit A10 are found to be totally different from the boundaries of the suit properties. THE sale certificates and the delivery receipts marked as Exhibit B2 to B5 have got more probative value than the kist receipts and the adangal extract filed by the plaintiff. At any rate an order of injunction cannot be issued as against the real owner of the suit properties.