R SUBBIAH Vs. P ANANDAM ALIAS PANCHALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs in O.S. No. 118/83 on the file of the District Munsif, Nagercoil, are the appellants in the Second Appeal. THE suit was filed for injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the possession of the appellants on the following averments: THE suit property of a total extent of 82 cents, 38 cents in S. No. 1439 and 44 cents in S. No. 1438, in Iranchakulam Village, Thovalai Taluk, Kanyakumari District, belonged to the joint family of Subbayyan Asari and Chidambarathanu Asari. Chidambarathanu Asari died leaving behind him his widow Parvathy and daughter, the respondent herein. Subbayyan Asari and Parvathy entered into an agreement on 21.9.1117 M.E. under which 27 cents of suit land were given to Parvathy for enjoyment during her life time. THE rest of the suit property was taken by Subbayyan Asari. Subbayyan Asari orally gave t he property to the appellant's father Ramaswamy Asari. Ramaswamy Asari became the full owner of the suit property on the death of Parvathy in 1961. Ramaswamy Asari had leased the property to the second appellant. Ramaswamy Asari died on 3.4.1982 leaving behind him the first appellant and another son and three daughters. THE first appellant was managing the property on behalf of the family. On 12.2.1983, the respondent herein attempted to interfere with the appellants" peaceful possession of the property . She had also filed a false complaint at Bhoothapandy Police Station to harass the appellants and that the suit was therefore necessitated for the reliefs already mentioned.

(2.) THE respondent resisted the suit contending inter alia as follows: THE suit property belonged to her father Chidambarathanu Asari by purchase on 6.4.1097 M.E. with his own funds and he was in separate possession and enjoyment. On his death, the property devolved on his daughter, the respondent herein. Subbayyan Asari and Parvathy did not have any right in the property. THE alleged agreement between Paivathy and Subbayyan was a fraudulent, collusive and invalid document and the same was not binding on the respondent. She was entitled to ignore the same as she was not a party to the same. Subbayyan Asari and his heirs did not have any right in the suit property. He was not competent to deal with the property. THE second appellant also was never in enjoyment of the property. THE respondent was the absolute owner and she was in possession. After the harvest on 11.9.1982, she engaged the second appellant for threshing operations and the second appellant colluded with the first appellant and both of them appropriated the paddy and the hay. Subsequently, the land was leased to Philip and he was cultivating the same. THE suit without a prayer for declaration was not maintainable and in any event, the respondent had prescribed for title by adverse possession.

(3.) TO appreciate the rival contentions, it would be useful to have a genealogy which is as follows: Table