LAWS(MAD)-2019-12-567

VELUCHAMY Vs. AATHIMOOLATHEVAR

Decided On December 09, 2019
VELUCHAMY Appellant
V/S
Aathimoolathevar Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff in O.S.No.290 of 2006 whose suit for declaration and injunction with reference to five items of properties, was decreed in respect if Item Nos.3 to 5 and dismissed in respect of Item Nos. 1 and 2 by the trial Court, on the said judgment and decree, being confirmed on appeal in A.S.No.21 of 2012, has come up with the present Second Appeal.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, the suit properties were purchased by his father Aathimoolathevar, son of Pavanasathevar under sale deeds, dated 6.1.1948 and 29.1.1948 and the said purhaser was favoured with a patta in Patta No.97 in respect of the land purchased by him. The said Aathimoolathevar was in possession of the said land till his date of death. On his death, the property devolved on the plaintiff, his only son. Contending that the plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the property pursuant to the title conferred on his father under two sale deds referred to supra, the plaintiff had filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. Since the defendant attempted to dispute his title and sought to interfere with his possession.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendant contending that the suit properties did not belong to Aathimoolathevar, son of Pavanasa Thevar. According to the defendant, the suit property belonged to Melavasaga Thevar, son of Aathimoola Thevar. He has been granted patta in Patta No: 197 and he was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The said Melavasaga Thevar died leaving behind his only son Ramachandran. The defendant had purchased the properties from Ramachandran under Sale deed dated 12.2.2004. After the purchase, the revenue records were mutated in the name of the defendant on 21.4.2010 and patta was issued to the defendant. The defendant would also specifically plead that the two sale deeds, dated 6.1.1948 and 29.1.1948 relied upon by the plaintiff did not relate to the suit properties. An additional written statement was filed stating the plaintiff has no title to the property in S.Nos.428/5 and 428/8 and 428/10 also.