C.RAMAIAH Vs. A.KOTHAI ATCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit is for declaration of (i) the title of the plaintiffs and defendants 4, 6 and 7 to the suit property ; and (ii) the partition deed dated 01.05.1968 document No.1348 of 1968 and sale deeds dated 19.08.1972 document No.1518 of 1971 and 10.03.1976 document Nos.361 and 362 of 1976 executed in favour of defendants 1 to 3 interse as null and void as far as plaintiffs and defendants 4, 6 and 7 are concerned. The consequential direction sought for is to the defendants 1 to 3 to deliver/restore possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs and defendants 4, 6 and 7 and also a direction to the defendants to pay damages of Rs.10,00,100/-.

(2.) The suit property relates to land and building measuring about 22 grounds and 5 sq.ft. situate at Purasawalkam/Vepery, Chennai. The plaintiffs and the defendants 1 and 2 are closely related and they are descendants of S.A.Annamalai Chettiar, who died in the year 1907. The said Annamalai Chettiar had five sons, of whom, the heirs of SA.RM.Ramasamy Chettiar and S.A.P.Palaniappan are litigating. On the death of the said Annamalai Chettiar, who died in 1907, the family business and properties were managed and administered by the grandfather of the plaintiffs 1 and 2, namely, SA.RM.Ramasamy Chettiar. Thereafter, there was a partition among the family, which was reduced to writing and registered as Document No.789 of 1915. In the said partition, the properties described in the B Schedule were allotted to SA.RM.Ramasamy Chettiar's children. The plaintiffs and the defendants 4 to 6 (the seventh defendant is brought on record in the place of the deceased fifth defendant, for the sake of convenience, they are referred to as defendants 4 to 6) are the heirs of the said Ramasamy Chettiar, who died on 06.11.1913. According to the plaintiffs, by virtue of the said partition, the plaintiffs and defendants 4 to 6 became owners of the suit property. It is further stated that the said partition deed was acted upon by executing the release deeds in the year 1917, 1921 and 1927.

(3.) While so, the predecessors of the defendants, namely, Palaniappan Chettiar challenged the partition of the year 1915 by filing O.S.No.105 of 1925 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Devakottai. He had also executed a release deed favouring the plaintiffs' predecessors acknowledging and admitting their right, interest and title. It is further stated by the plaintiffs that S.A.Annamalai Chettiar was in management and possession till 1960 and thereafter, he handed over the possession to S.A.P.Annamalai Chettiar, S/o.Palaniappan/second defendant's father on behalf of plaintiffs' predecessor. Therefore, according to the plaintiffs, the possession of Annamalai Chettiar, S/o.Palaniappan was only on behalf of plaintiffs predecessor and he did not have any ownership in the property. It is also admitted by the plaintiffs that the defendants 1 to 3 had filed suits in the City Civil Court, Chennai, against the third plaintiff for bare injunction in O.S.No.1574 of 2001 and 1575 of 2001. The third plaintiff, being the defendant in those suits, was contesting the said suits. However, later, the suits were withdrawn by the plaintiffs therein. The plaintiffs are tracing their source of title on the partition deed of the year 1915. Only after defendants 1 to 3 filed the suits before the City Civil Court, the intention of the parties was understood and hence, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking declaration that the alienation in favour of the defendants 1 to 3 are null and void. The plaintiffs are also claiming damages for use and occupation.