PERUMAL (DIED) Vs. M.VENKATAPPAN (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.1134 of 1981 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Krishnagiri is the appellant herein. The suit had been filed for a declaration of title and for Permanent Injunction with respect to the suit property. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-M.Perumal against the three defendants viz., Ponnusamy, Venkatappan and Kannan. It had been stated in the plaint that the suit property was in possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff- Perumal and the first and second defendants Ponnusamy and Venkatappan are brothers. There was a partition among them on 06.04.1964. In accordance with the partition, the first item of property was allotted to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been in continuous enjoyment of the same. The father of the plaintiff was allotted another property. It was agreed that on the demise of the father, that property would be taken by the plaintiff and the first defendant. The father of the plaintiff died on 15.08.1964. Thereafter, the plaintiff and the first defendant divided that particular property. They were in joint possession and enjoyment from 1964 till 1973. Thereafter, in a partition, the second item of suit property was allotted to the plaintiff. It was claimed that the second and third defendants have acquired title of the property. Since the defendants interfered with the possession of the plaintiff, necessity arose to institute the suit seeking declaration of title and protection of possession.

(2.) The defendants filed a written statement in which they claimed that the plaintiff was not entitled to the suit property. It was also claimed that the plaintiff was not in possession of the suit property. It was admitted, however, the first item of suit property was allotted to the plaintiff. It was stated that after partition, the plaintiff sold 2.30 acres of land. The plaintiff was in possession of 45 cents alone. It was denied that the plaintiff was entitled to 85 cents in the first item of suit property. It was also denied that the property of the father should be taken jointly by the plaintiff and the first defendant. It was also denied that the property was divided into two parts. It was claimed to have been enjoyed in common and also claimed that the second defendant was not a party to the partition between the plaintiff and the first defendant. It was also stated that the first defendant was a minor on 22.08.1973. It was claimed that the first, second defendants were also entitled to a share in the second item of suit property along with the plaintiff.

(3.) The learned District Munsif, Krishnagiri framed necessary issues and took up the case for trial. During trial, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and another witness Perumal was examined as P.W.2. The second defendant was examined as D.W.1 and another witness Ramasamy was examined as D.W.2. The plaintiffs marked Exhibits A1 to A3. Exhibit A1 is the Partition Deed between the plaintiff and the first defendant dated 22.08.1973. Exhibit A2 is the sale deed executed by the first defendant in favour of Govindammal dated 18.10.1984. Exhibit A3 series are Adangal extract pertaining to Fasli 1383 to 1392. The defendants marked Exhibits B1 to B12. These included copies of the partition deed dated 06.04.1964, sale deeds as Exhibits B4 to B9 and Voters Identity Card as Exhibits B11 and B12.