CHINNAMOORTHY AMMAL Vs. JANAKIRAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order in C.M.A.5/2007 dated 24.06.2008 on the file of the Principal Sub Judge, Tindivanam confirming the fair and decretal order in I.A.347/2007 in O.S.58/2007 dated 26.09.2007 on the file of the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vanur. The Civil Revision Petitioner/appellant/petitioner/plaintiff has filed this revision petition as against the Judgment dated 24.06.2008 in C.M.A.5/07 passed by the learned Principal Sub Judge, Tindivanam in affirming the order dated 26.09.2007 in I.A.347/07 in O.S.58/07 passed by the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Vanur.

(2.) THE First Appellate Authority in the Judgment passed in C.M.A.5/07 dated 24.06.2008 has inter alia observed that whether the revision petitioner is in enjoyment of the suit property after purchasing the same from Rajamani etc., or whether the respondents are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property not only through oral partition of the first respondent's father Kannaiya Gounder and by means of sale deed are all matters to be determined only during the trial of the case through oral and documentary evidence adduced by witnesses, etc., and resultantly, dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal without costs, thereby affirming the order of the trial Court passed in I.A.347/07 in O.S.58/07 dated 26.09.2007.

(3.) PER contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 submits that it is not correct to state that the petition mentioned property belongs to Rajamani as per the sale deed dated 26.02.2001 and further it is not correct to state that the petition mentioned property and some other properties have been allotted to Felix Gaberial Marg and for him, one Dharmaraj as guardian maintained the petition mentioned properties and moreover, it is not true to say that the properties have been enjoyed by the said Rajamani, who in turn executed the settlement deed dated 13.01.2003 in favour of Varalakshmi and added further, it is not true to state that the said Rajamani has purchased 3 acres and 94 cents out of which he executed a settlement deed in favour of Varalakshmi in respect of 1 acre and 97 cents and the balance of 1 acre and 97 cents he sold it to the revision petitioner on 31.01.2002 and it is true that the petition mentioned property belongs to Kothandarama Gounder as per the sale deed dated 24.01.1961 and that on 21.04.1959 when the Bhogia loan executed by Mariam Beevi has been pending, Kothandarama Gounder purchased the same and that the said Kothandaraman has asked his son-in-law Kannaiya Gounder's sons Sundaramoorthy, Janakiraman, Ramu @ Kothandaraman to wipe off the said loan and immediately Kothandarama Gounder accepted the parties and only on that basis, the said Bhogiyam has been wiped out by the said Kothandarama Gounder on 30.03.1961 and accepted the properties and thereafter with the consent of Kothandaraman Patta No.651 has been obtained in the name of Sundaramoorthy and the aforesaid sons of Kothandarama Gounder have jointly enjoyed all the properties along with Kothandarama Gounder and the said Kothandaraman expired in 1968 and his issues are 1) Kalivaratha PERumal (only son) 2) daughters Soodamani, Veerammal, Janagam, Dhanalakshmi, Kizhiambal @ Puliyampattu Ammal, Jayakantham and after the death of Kothandaramanm apart from the petition property in respect of other properties the said Kalivaratha PERumal has been enjoying the same after changing the patta and that Kalivaratha PERumal and Kothandarama Gounder and his sons have enjoyed the property without any objection whatsoever and later Kalivaratha PERumal has sold the other properties to Kothandarama Gounder on 09.05.1984 to which act the daughters of Kothandarama Gounder have not raised objection and that they have executed a release deed in favour of the said Kothandaraman on 21.06.1981 and that Soodamani and Jayakantham have orally released their rights and therefore the father of the respondent Kothandarama Gounder and the respondent's brothers Sundaramoorthy, Ramu @ Kothandaraman have acquired the right in the said properties as per law and no one has got any right or enjoyment after the year 1961 and that the Partition Arrangement dated 03.01.2000 is not legally valid and fabricated one and never at any point of time, the 3 acre and 94 cents have been in enjoyment in the hands of Kalivaratha PERumal and further either Dharmaraj or anyone has enjoyed the same and further never at any point of time, the petition mentioned property belonged to Felix Gaberial Marg and Dharmaraj has created false records and filed a petition before the District Court, Villipuram with false averments and obtained an order and created a fabricated false sale deed and that even for a single day, the said Rajamani has not enjoyed the petition mentioned property and that the sale deed executed by Rajamani in favour of the petitioner is a fabricated one and therefore the revision petitioner cannot claim any right in the petition mentioned property and further that the revision petitioner has not enjoyed the petition mentioned property and likewise the sale deed executed by Dharmaraj in favour of Chinnamoorthy Ammal is a fabricated one and therefore prays for dismissal of the revision petition.