ARUMUGHAM Vs. PALANIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants 1 and 2 in O.S.No.226 of 2003, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gobichettipalayam, are the appellants herein. The plaintiff has laid the suit for declaration of her title and for recovery of the suit property. The trial Court decreed the suit and in an appeal filed by the present appellants in A.S.No.54 of 2009 on the file of Sub-Court, Gobichettipalayam, the first appellate Court dismissed the same and confirmed the decree of the Trial Court. Challenging the said decree, the present appeal is preferred. The parties would be referred to as per their rank in the suit.

(2.) The suit property is described as a plot of 73.5 sq. ft. with a residential building. This property, according to the plaintiff, was purchased by a certain Subramanian under Ext.A-1 Sale Deed dtd. 26/8/1981. He having been passed away, his right devolved on his wife, the plaintiff and his only daughter, the third defendant. The defendants 1 and 2/the appellants herein are the brothers of said Subramanian. The defendants were put in possession of the suit properties as a permissive occupant and hence were required to vacate, Vide a suit notice dtd. 28/8/2003, but as they refused to vacate, the plaintiff was constrained to institute the suit.

(3.) Denying the plaint allegations, including the title of Subramanian to the suit property, the defendants 1 and 2/ appellants would plead that even assuming the plaintiffs have any title to the property, they could be evicted only upon a notice issued under Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act , 1882. Secondly, the plaintiff had issued a lawyer's notice dtd. 4/7/2003 alleging that she had entered into a sale agreement with them on 13/7/1997 for sale of the suit property for a total consideration of Rs.60,000.00 and that they had paid a sum of Rs.10,000.00 as advance, and that despite several requests to perform their part of the contract, they refused to do the same. Thirdly, that these defendants are in open, hostile and continuous possession of the suit property for well over the statutory period and thus, they have perfected title to the suit property by adverse possession.