CHENGALVARAYA PILLAI Vs. GOVINDA PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 16. 12. 1994, made in A. S. No. 6 of 1993, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, ranipet, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 21. 12. 1992, made in o. S. No. 442 of 1989, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ranipet.

(2.) THE plaintiff in the suit, in O. S. No. 442 of 1989, is the appellant in the present second appeal. The defendants in the said suit are the respondents herein. The suit had been filed by the plaintiff praying for the relief of declaration of title and for permanent injunction. The plaintiff had stated that the suit property is his absolute property. He had got it under an oral partition between the plaintiff and the defendants and one Kannan, who is the brother of both the plaintiff and the defendants, in or about the year, 1975. Thereafter, the plaintiff had constructed a tiled house in the schedule property and he has been enjoying the remaining portion of the said property, as a vacant site. As such, the brothers of the plaintiff have no right or title or interest over the schedule property.

(3.) THE defendants had sold the adjacent vacant site, which they had got under the oral partition, to one Kalidoss, by a registered sale deed, dated 28. 4. 1980. They had repurchased the said property from Kalidoss and his minor sons, by a registered sale deed, dated 23. 9. 1981. Accordingly, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the said property, which is a vacant site. While so, the defendants had been attempting to trespass into the suit scheduled property, from 1. 7. 1989 onwards. They had also threatened to demolish the house constructed by the plaintiff in the said property taking advantage of the fact that the plaintiff is very old and sick. In such circumstances, the plaintiff had filed the suit, in O. S. No. 442 of 1989, praying for the relief for declaration of his title, in respect of the suit property and for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.