LAWS(MAD)-2010-7-55

KALUVA KOUNDER Vs. MANNANKATTI

Decided On July 06, 2010
KALUVA KOUNDER Appellant
V/S
MANNANKATTI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case set out in the plaint is shortly as follows:- The suit property originally belonged to Surendra Village. Before 80 years, one Narayana Gounder was in possession of the suit property and after his death, his legal heirs Seena Gounder, Thoppala Gounder, Venkatachala Gounder partitioned the property orally and the suit property was allotted to the share of Seena Gounder. After his death, his son Kuppa Gounder was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and after him, his legal heir the Plaintiff/1st Respondent is in possession of the same. The suit property is comprised in Old S.No.19/A (Paimash 609) measuring an extent of 100 cents and the suit property was reclassified as grama natham in RS.No.331/1. Since, the suit property is a grama natham, there was no tax assessment after its reclassification as Natham. and the predecessors of the Plaintiff were in possession and enjoyment of suit property by way of Kaichathu. In the said oral partition, sons of the Narayana Gounder took 33 cents each and thus Seena Gounder took 33 cents and his legal heirs Subbarayan, Kuppa Gounder, Mottaya Gounder orally partitioned the said suit property and took 11 cents each and and after the death of Kuppa Gounder, the Plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and he is using the same for storing hay-rick and for tethering cattle. The Defendants have no right in the suit property and on 1.1.2001, the Defendants attempted to trespass into the suit property and hence, the suit has been filed.

(2.) The case of the Defendants as set out in the Written Statement is as follows:- Kesava Gounder the father of the Defendants got the suit property in a oral parition in the year 1950 from Kuppa Gounder, the father of the Plaintiff and after the death of Kesava Gounder in the year 1970, the Defendants partitioned the suit property orally and they have been using the same for storing hayrick and tethering cattle. In the year, the Plaintiff wanted the suit property for sale in their favour, to which the Defendants refused. Since the daughter of the 4th Defendant was given in marriage to the elder son of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff and the 4th Defendant colluded together and filed the suit and the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties namely Sivakumar, the brother's son of the Plaintiff and legal heirs of Thoppala Gounder, Venkatachala Gounder, Mottaya Gounder and Subburaya Gounder and it is not correct to say that they trespassed into the suit property on 1.1.2001 as alleged by the Plaintiff and the suit is liable to dismissed.

(3.) Before the Trial Court, Ex.A1 to A3 were marked on the side of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and one Govindasamy, Rajamanickam, Perumal as Pws.2 to 4. On behalf of the Defendants, Ex.B1 to B4 were marked and the 1st Defendant was examined as DW.1 and one Govindasamy was examined as DW.2.