UMAPATHI MUDALIAR Vs. JAYAPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs who have concurrently lost in both the courts are the appellants before this court. The suit O.S.No.251 of 2009 is filed by them for a declaration of their title to the suit properties and for an injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the suit properties was dismissed. Challenging the same the plaintiffs had filed A.S.No.9 of 2014 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam.

(2.) 1. The brief facts necessary for disposing of the above second appeal is narrated herein below: The suit relates to lands situate in Gidangal Village of Tindivanam Taluk, comprised in Survey No.29/2 measuring an extent of 59 Cents out of a total extent of 0.67 Cents which has now been sub-divided and re-numbered as Survey No.10-2A and 2C and an extent of 0.27 Cents out of 0.33 Cents in Survey No.27/2 totally measuring an extent of 0.86 Cents of Nanja land. 2.2. The case of the plaintiffs is that one Ettiyan had executed a Pokkiyam in favour of one Ponnusamy on 05.07.2000 and another in favour of Kuppammal on 16.06.1924. On 31.08.1993, 67 Cents in Survey No.29/2 was sold by the sons and grand son of Ettiyan to Majeed Sahib. The 1st plaintiff had also purchased the property jointly but an extent of 33 Cents in Survey No.27/2 was also purchased by the said Majeed Sahib from Subbammal and the 1st plaintiff was also a purchaser. On 10.04.1985 Majeed Sahib sold an extent of 8 Cents in Survey No.29/2 and 6 cents in 27/2 to the 1st plaintiff, therefore 14 Cents belongs to the 1st plaintiff. Thereafter, under sale deed dated 11.06.2007 Majeed Sahib sold 36 Cents to the 2 nd plaintiff and that is to an extent of 25 1/2 Cents in Survey No.29/2 and 10 1/2 Cents in Survey No.27/2. Thereafter on 24.04.1988 an extent of 8 Cents in Survey No.29/2 and 6 Cents in 27/2 totally measuring 14 Cents was sold to one Kannan, the remaining extent was sold to the 3rd defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was in enjoyment of the total extent of 86 Cents and since the defendants were interfering in his possession and enjoyment of the properties the plaintiffs was constrained to file the suit in question.

(3.) The 1st defendant had filed a written statement which was adopted by the defendants 2 & 3. It is the case of the defendants that the property belongs to one Thandavarayan and he and his sisters were in joint enjoyment of the said properties, they had filed a suit O.S.No.417 of 2005 against one Mayilan. It was their specific case that the 1st plaintiff who was a Village Administrative Officer, was taking advantage of his position to create false documents. The 2nd and 3rd defendants had sold a small portion to Kandan and 33 cents is owned by Mayilan. The parties had gone to trial and the learned Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam, was pleased to dismiss the suit on the ground that there was no document to show that the 1st plaintiff was a sharer in respect of the property. The appellate court namely the Principal Sub Court Tindivanam, confirmed the judgment and decree of the learned Principal District Munsif by its judgment and decree dated 9th September 2016 made in A.S.No.9 of 2014. The Appellate Court had gone on to hold that the plaintiffs had not established their rights over the suit property and Exs. A4 and A5 which had been marked to show case his possession and ownership clearly disproved the claim of the plaintiffs. The appellate court therefore dismissed the appeal and challenging the said concurrent judgment and decree the plaintiffs are before this court.