K A PERUMALSAMY Vs. A KANDASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful first defendant in both the courts below has preferred the above second appeal,

(2.) The case in brief is as follows :- The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and recovery of possession of the suit property from the defendants and for past and future damages. The suit property and other properties originally belonged to Meenatchi Estate. One Abirami Enterprises purchased the entire properties under a registered document dated 17.3.1986. The suit property and other areas in survey No. 72 were purchased by the plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 80,000 from Abirami Enterprises under a registered document dated 9.10.1987. The second defendant is the son of the first defendant. They were in possession of the properties and they agreed to deliver possession. In fact, they had delivered possession of the other two items and they were rented out by the plaintiff to one Sivanandam. The first defendant attempted to get electricity service connection and also filed O.S.No. 1135 of 1988 on the file of District Munsif Court, Dindigul for permanent injunction. If the property in the occupation of the first defendant was rented out, it will fetch a sum of Rs. 150 per month. Hence the suit.

(3.) The defendants resisted the suit admitting the title of Meenatchi Estate. According to them, the first defendant was appointed as a trustee for the properties on 1.5.1975. He was employed as a Manager in Meenatchi Estate from 1.1.1980. The suit property was orally gifted to him in view of the services rendered by him to the management. Now, the first defendant is residing in the property along with his family members. The fact of handing over the property to the first defendant will be apparently clear from the earlier court proceedings. The sale in favour of Abirami Enterprises as well as the sale in favour of the plaintiff do not cover the suit property in the possession and enjoyment of the defendants. Electricity service connection was also taken in the name of the first defendant. Moreover, the first defendant had already filed a suit against the plaintiff and others in O.S.No. 176 of 1988. The plaintiff is not entitled to claim recovery of possession of the property.