V. MUTHUKRISHNAN Vs. V. ADHIKESAVALU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil suit is filed by the plaintiffs for partition and Declaration.

(2.) The plaintiffs and defendants are the legal heirs of late Veerasamy who died in the year 1960 leaving behind the plaintiffs, the defendants and his wife Smt.Senganiammal who died in the year 1983.

(3.) The plaintiffs submits that their father Late Veerasamy out of his own funds purchased agricultural lands at No.288, Thiruvandar village, Uthiramerur Taluk, Chengalpet District to an extent of 2.68 cents in S.No.166/1, 0.49cents in S.No.181/3, 0.40cents in S.No.190/2, 0.68 cents in S.No.182/7. Ever since the life time of plaintiffs parents, the plaintiffs and the defendants were residing at No.83, Old No.96-;C, Habibullah Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-;17. The land owner proceeded against the defendants and the plaintiffs for ejecting them from the said property. The plaintiffs and the defendants jointly decided to sell the property in the native at Chengalpet District with a sole intention to purchase the property at T.Nagar. The property at Thiruvandar Village, Uthiramerur Taluk, Chengalpat District was sold to Krishnamurthy and T.D.Sivaraman vide Document Nos.2222 and 2223 of 1971 dated 23.08.1971. Out of the sale proceeds the property at T.Nagar was advanced and later on purchased. While purchasing the property at T.Nagar it was only a hut house, later on the plaintiffs and defendants jointly put up superstructure in the said property. At the time of putting up construction there was a panchayat between the parties with regard to partition of the property. The issue was amicably settled between the parties and the plaintiffs executed a General Power of Attorney in favour of the 1st defendant for doing certain acts and deeds with regard to the property at T.Nagar. As requested by the 1st defendant, the plaintiffs signed the power of attorney deed produced by the 1st defendant, till date the plaintiffs were not aware what was the contents in the said instrument. After construction of the said property in the year 1991, the 1st defendant let out the property to various tenants and collected the rents and periodically paid the rental incomes to the plaintiffs. Further, the movable belongings like jewels, furnitures are still lying in the suit property and they have every right to access the suit property.