ARJUNA SUBRAMANYA REDDY Vs. ARJUNA CHINA THANGAVELU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S. No.20 of 1987 on the file of the District Munsiff Magistrate, Nagari, is the appellant. He filed the suit for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. He pleaded that he purchased the suit schedule land under a sale deed, dated 20-2-1981 (Ex.A-1) for a consideration of Rs.1,800/-, and thereafter he acquired the possession of the superstructure under an agreement of sale, dated 31-3-1981 (Ex.A-2) for a consideration of Rs.1,450/-. According to him, five years before the sale of the property, his vendor, P.W.2, had inducted the respondent (defendant) into permissive possession and when the latter was required to handover the vacant possession of the premises, he declined.

(2.) The appellant got issued a notice, dated 5-4-1981 (Ex.A-4) calling upon the respondent to deliver the vacant possession. To this, the respondent issued a reply (Ex.A-6) stating inter alia that the suit schedule property was purchased by his brother, about thirty years back from P.W.2 through an oral sale and five vears thereafter it was allotted to him in a partition, among the brothers. He has also taken the plea of adverse possession, apart from claiming title in himself. Hence, the appellant filed the suit for the relief of declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property.

(3.) The respondent filed a written statement, virtually, repeating his stand in the reply notice marked as Ex.A-6.