JOTHI RAMALINGAM Vs. M N SIVAGNANA PRAKASAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-second defendant has filed the Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2001 in A.S. No. 44 of 1999 on the file of the Sub-Court, Ranipet, Vellore District, reversing the judgment and decree dated 10.9.1999 in O.S. No. 30 of 1996 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Arcot.

(2.) The averments in the plaint are as follows: The suit property was originally owned by one Thirugnanasammanda Mudaliar and he executed a Will in favour of his only daughter Balammal alias Bala Gujambal on 19.4.1926. On his demise, Balammal succeeded the property. She married one Natarajan, who is the father of the plaintiffs. Balammal alias Bala Gujambal died after giving birth to a son, by name M.N. Sammandan, who also died. So, on the death of his wife, the plaintiffs' father succeeded to the property. The plaintiffs are the sons through his second wife, by name Nani Ammal and till his death, he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. On 26.8.1985, the said Natarajan executed a Will. It was duly attested when he was sound and disposing state of mind. He died on 12.9.1985. So, the plaintiffs are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property for more than 50 years. They perfected title to the suit property. The defendants have no right in the property. They unlawfully removed the 'mulveli' trees on 1.7.1990 and notice was issued on them. A reply with false allegations has been received. Even if there is any sale in favour of the first respondent, it will not bind the plaintiffs at any cost. The defendants were trying to remove the mud in the schedule mentioned property. Hence, the plaintiffs were constrained to file the suit for injunction. After the filing of the written statement by the first defendant, the plaintiffs came to know that he purchased the property from the second defendant and hence for proper adjudication, the plaintiffs impleaded the second defendant as a party to the suit. Hence, the plaintiffs prayed for permanent injunction.

(3.) The gist and essence of the written statement filed by the first defendant are as follows: The execution of the Will is denied. The plaintiffs have no right or title to the suit property. The plaintiffs are absolute strangers to the suit property. The plaintiffs' father, namely Natarajan never succeeded to the estate of the deceased wife. He was not the sole surviving legal heir to succeed the estate of his deceased wife. The alleged Will dated 26.8.1985 said to have been executed by Natarajan in favour of the plaintiffs is not true. Due execution and attestation of the Will have to be proved by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs never succeeded to the suit property and never enjoyed the property. All along, the first defendant is in possession and enjoyment of the property. He purchased the suit property by means of registered sale deed in the year 1989 from his vendor Jothi Ramalingam and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. The title to the suit property was recognised in O.S. No. 7 of 1989 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Ranipet. The first defendant and his predecessor-in-title have perfected title to the suit property by long, continuous and uninterrupted possession. So, he prescribed title with the knowledge of the true owner and hence, he prescribed title by adverse possession. The plaintiffs have no title to the suit property. The suit filed by the plaintiffs is not maintainable. The plaintiffs neither prescribed title nor possession to the suit property. Hence, the first defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.