M.SUBRAMANI Vs. G.ANBAZAGAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of two cross suits. The first suit in O.S.No.4327 of 2004 was filed by the plaintiff seeking a declaration that the settlement deed dated 22.03.1995 executed by one Ganesan in favour of the defendant is void abinitio and not binding on the plaintiff, for recovery of possession and for mesne profits.

(2.) According to the plaintiff, the suit property belonged to his father G.Mangaleeswaran @ G.M.Easwaran. It being a grama natham property, the plaintiff would rely upon the patta said to have been issued by the Special Tahsildar on 20.05.1976 in proof of his possession as well as title. But, the defendant who is none else than the paternal uncle of the plaintiff, according to the plaintiff, was put in permissive possession of a portion of the property and after the death of the father viz., G.Mangaleeswaran @ G.M.Easwaran, the defendant started setting up title over the property claiming under the settlement deed executed by his father Ganesan on 22.03.1995. Contending that Ganesan had no right over the property to enable him to execute the settlement deed, the plaintiff sought for the reliefs stated supra. The execution of the settlement deed by Ganesan was also specifically denied.

(3.) This suit was resisted by the defendant contending that his father Ganesan was in possession of the property for a long time and he had executed a settlement deed dated 22.03.1995 settling the property on the defendant. It is the further contention of the defendant that the patta under which the plaintiff claims is a fabricated document and therefore, the plaintiff has no title to the property. On the above contentions, the defendant sought for dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.4327 of 2004.