K.KASINATHAN Vs. N.UMASANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs in O.S.No: 261 of 2009 on the file of the District Munsif, Cuddlore who succeeded in obtaining a decree for declaration of title of the first plaintiff to the first item of the suit properties and that of the second plaintiff to the second item of the suit properties and for a permanent injunction on the said decree being reversed by the Appellate court in A.S.No: 21 of 2012 have come up with this second appeal.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit properties measuring about 2.50 acres in new survey number 79/3 of Sandoorpalayam village, Cuddalore district belonged to one Kunjan. He had sold the said property for a sum of Rs.90/- on 8/8 /1966 under a unregistered sale deed and delivered possession to the purchaser namely A.Dhandapani. According to the plaintiffs ever since the date of purchase the said Dhandapani was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property openly, uninterruptedly, peacefully and adverse to the interest of anyone else and he had also prescribed title by adverse possession. It is the further claim of the plaintiffs that the said Dhandapani died on 26/02/ 2002 leaving behind the second plaintiff Thiyageswari and his children to succeed to the said property. It is claimed that the children of the second plaintiff relinquished their interest to her and the second plaintiff has been in enjoyment of the entirety of the property absolutely. With the consent of the children the patta was also changed in her name. The plaintiffs would further contend that the second plaintiff and one of her daughters Gayathri had entered into an agreement of sale on 20/11/2007 and thereafter sold and an extent of 2 acres and 10 cents out of 2 acres 50 cents under a registered sale deed dated 11/2/2008. Upon such sale the first plaintiff has been in possession of the property conveyed to him and the second plaintiff has been in possession of the remaining 40 cents of land. Claiming that the defendant attempted to interfere with the posssession of the plaintiffs setting up a claim of title under a sale deed said to have been executed by the heirs of Kunjan, the plaintiffs sought for the reliefs of declaration and injunction.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendant contending that the sale by Kunjan in favour of Dhandapani dated 8/8/1966 is not valid. The said sale being unregistered cannot confer any title on the plaintiff's predecessor in interest, Dhandapani. The claim based on adverse possession was also denied. It was his further claim that the assignment was made in favour of Kunjan in 1962 subject to the condition that he should not alienate the property within 10 years of the assignment. The sale dated 8/8/1966 having taken place within 10 years of the said assignment, according to the defendant, is invalid. This defence was however not canvassed seriously at trial. The defendant would further claim that Kunjan died about 20 years prior to the suit and after his death his wife and his daughter have been in possession and enjoyment of the property as absolute owners. Visalakshi wife of Kunjan executed a general power dated 4/12/2003 in favour of Amaravathi and the said Amaravathi sold the suit property under a sale deed dated 1/2/2008 in favour of the defendant for valid consideration. Therefore according to the defendant he alone is entitled to the suit property.