S. VEDARAJ PILLAI Vs. MEYYAMMAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As against the concurrent findings of the Courts below, the Appellant is before this Court. The deceased Plaintiff is the Appellant herein. Pending the Appeal, the Appellant died and his legal representatives are impleaded as the Appellants 2 to 7 in the Second Appeal. The Appellant/Plaintiff originally filed the Suit claiming that he and his brother, namely, one Durairaj Pillai, are the owner of the Suit property in question. The said Durairaj Pillai died intestate. There is no legal heirs for him. The Plaintiff's father is one Soosaiya Pillai and his brother is Chinnasamy Pillai and the said Chinnasamy Pillai died intestate in a Foreign Country and his legal heirs have never come to India. Therefore, according to him, the Appellant/Plaintiff and his father has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the Suit property. The said Suit property is a house property bearing Door No. 18 and its house Receipt Number is 207 and he has been paying the House Tax also. He would also assert that if at a later point of time, the legal heirs of the said Chinnasamy Pillai claims any title or share of the property, he is willing to do so.

(2.) It is further stated in the Plaint that the Defendants 1 & 2 are the husband and wife. The First Defendant has got the Sale Deed, dated 7.7.1993, from one Lourdhumari. However, according to the Plaintiff, she has no right over the Suit property in question. The said Lourdhumari is not the wife of the said Durairajpillai. Based on the said Sale Deed, the Defendants are claiming that the said Lourdhumari is the vendor of the property. According to him, the Door No. 18 is the Suit property and he has got possession of the property. Later on, in 1993, when the Plaintiff was not in town, the Defendants had encroached the property. He made a Complaint on 19.6.1999 as against the Defendants stating that they had encroached his property, as they have no right over the property in question. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit stating that he is the owner of the property and for recovery of possession of the property.

(3.) The Defendant has filed a Written Statement specifically denying that the name of the father of the Plaintiff stating that it is wrongly furnished by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff, with an ulterior motive has furnished the name of his father as Sussiahpillai @ Surabba Pillai whereas the Plaintiffs father name is Surabba Pillai and he is not the direct brother of the said Durairaj Pillai. Therefore, he has fraudulently stated that he is the son of Sussiahpillai. The correct number of the Suit property is Door No. 25 corresponding to the old No. 17 and the original Door No. 19 at the time of the purchase by these Defendants. According to the Defendants, the description of the property is correct. The marriage between the said Lourdhumari and the said Durairajpillai took place as early as 6.2.1975 in Saint Mary's Church, Cathidral, Madras. After the death of Durairaj Pillai, Lourdhumari became the absolute owner of the property in question. From her, the Defendants had purchased the property way back in 7.7.1993 for a valuable consideration and pursuant to the same, they have been in possession and enjoyment of the Suit property. Since the Plaintiff is not the brother of Durairaj Pillai, the Appellant herein can claim no right over the property. Further, these Defendants never trespassed in the Suit property. The Court fees paid by the Plaintiff is also not correct. Even at the time of 1993, the value of the market price of the Suit property is 728,200/-, whereas, he has paid market value for Stamp duty for the Suit property is only Rs. 2,000/-. Hence, prays for the dismissal of the Suit.