BALAKRISHNAN Vs. LAKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SECOND Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure judgment and decree dated 30.11.1999 made in A.S.No,80 of 1998 on the file of Principal District Court, Villupuram against the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No,814 of 1993 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Villupuram.) The above SECOND Appeal arises against the judgment and decree in A.S.No,80 of 1998 on the file of Principal District Court, Villupuram confirming the Judgment and Decree in O.S.No,814 of 1993 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Villupuram.

(2.) THE plaintiff in the suit is the appellant in the above second appeal. THE respondents are the defendants in the suit.

(3.) THE brief case of the defendants is as follows: According to the defendants, the first defendant ownes a house on the south of the plaintiff's property by a deed of sale dated 28.1.1963. THE father of the second defendant purchased a site measuring 40' x 20'. On the south of the property purchased by the father of the second defendant, one Kannammal owned a house constructed within a site measuring 40' x 20'. THE said Kannammal sold the house property to the first defendant by a deed of sale dated 27.1.1982. THE father of the second defendant, Ranganathan died on 29.1.1975 leaving behind the second defendant alone his legal heir. Thus, both the defendants have became the owners of the property measuring 40 feet east to west and 40 feet north to south. Subsequently, the defendants demolished the thatched roof in both the houses and put up a single roof over the two houses making it into a single unit. That according to the defendants, while making a single unit, the defendants left out portion measuring about 2 feet north to south and 40 feet east to west for the rain water to fall from the roof. THErefore, the defendants denied the claim of the plaintiff that the plaintiff and his predecessors in title have been in possession of the property for more than 100 years. According to the defendants, they prescribed title by adverse possession on the northern side. THE defendants also disputed that the plaintiff's title and possession over the property. According to the defendants, the plaintiff had purchased the property with wrong measurements. THErefore the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.