PERIASAMI MUTHIRIAN Vs. ANANDAYI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The original suit was by plaintiff for a declaration that the plaint nanja land belongs to her and for permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with her enjoyment. It was admitted that the melwaram in the land belongs to plaintiff. 1 defendant claimed that he owns the hudivaram. The first Court decreed the suit and the lower Appellate Court concurred. Defendants appeal.

(2.) The first point taken is that there is no evidence on which the lower Court's findings that plaintiff has title to the land can be based. This, I think, must be allowed. Ex. C the inam register does not make a definite statement as to the particular details of the grant. Exs. A and B are only comparatively recent title-deeds and do not recite that the kudivaram was sold. The mere fact that they are more than 30 years old, and purport to have been attested by one Kathaperumal, paternal uncle of 1 defendant, cannot be any evidence that the kudivaram also was sold. There is no other evidence on the point.

(3.) On the other hand 1 defendant also has not proved title. There are concurrent findings on this point and there is no evidence to prove his title.