S GANESAN Vs. S KUPPUSWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree 20.11.1995 passed in O.S.No.380 of 1990 by the Subordinate Judge, Kancheepuram, which is one for delivery of possession of the suit properties, for mesne profits and for damages for illegal use and occupation of the properties.

(2.) THE epitome and the long and short of the case of the plaintiff, as stood exposited from the averments in the plaint as well as from the documents and submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would run thus:-(a) THE property described in the 'A' schedule of the plaint was allotted to the share of one K. Chinna Kannu Reddy, as per Partition Deed dated 27.2.1966(Ex.A2).(b) 'B' and 'C' schedule properties were allowed to be occupied by defendants 1 and 2 respectively, who are none but the brother-in-laws of the plaintiff, under leave and licence, by the said Chinna Kannu Reddy,(c) Chinna Kannu Reddy, during his life time executed a registered 'Will' dated 25.7.1993 in favour of the plaintiff, bequeathing the 'A' scheduled property, which includes 'B' and 'C' scheduled properties of the plaint. In fact, the plaintiff happened to be the adopted son of the said Chinna Kannu Reddy.(d) After the death of Chinna Kannu Reddy on 29.7.1985, as revealed by Ex.A3-the death certificate, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit properties. (e) Notice was sent revoking the licence granted in favour of D1 and D2, which, instead of evoking positive response from them, resulted in they sending replies, setting up untenable claims. A rejoinder also was sent by the plaintiff. Hence, the suit for obtaining delivery of possession of the suit properties for mesne profits and for damages for illegal use and occupation of the properties by the defendant.

(3.) ULTIMATELY, the trial Court dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree of the trial Court, the appellant preferred this appeal on the following grounds among others.(a) the judgment and decree of the trial Court are against law and weight of evidence.(b) the trial Court, after correctly disbelieving the version of the defendants that they purchased the properties under oral sale, fell into error in expecting the plaintiff to prove his title over the suit property.(c) the trial Court was also not justified in holding that Ex.A17-the 'Will' was not proved as per law.Accordingly, the appellant/plaintiff prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and for decreeing the original suit as prayed for.