MINOR SARATHY Vs. REFFEKUNNISSA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above civil revision petition is directed against the fair and decretal order dated 23. 9. 2003 made in C. M. A. No. 37 of 1999 by the court of Subordinate Judge, Tirupattur, Vellore District thereby reversing the fair and decretal order dated 25. 8. 1998 made in I. A. No. 1100 of 1998 in o. S. No. 616 of 1998 by the Court of District Munsif, Tirupattur.

(2.) TRACING the history of the above civil revision petition, what comes to be known is that the petitioner herein has filed the above suit in O. S. No. 616 of 1998 before the lower Court for a declaration declaring the minor plaintiff's right, title and interest in the plaint schedule property and for consequential injunction against the defendants 1 to 5 from ever trespassing, interfering or causing any disturbance or hindrance to the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the portion of the plaint schedule property in S. No. 337/2ca measuring East West 15 feet, North South 20 feet totalling 300 sq. feet, declaring the sale deed dated 13. 3. 1995 executed by the 5th defendant in favour of the defendants 3 and 4 as null and void, declaring the sale deed in respect of second item of property covered and the sale deed dated 15. 9. 1998 executed by the defendants 3 and 4 in favour of the first defendant as null and void and for costs.

(3.) THE counter filed by the first respondent has been adopted by Respondents No. 2 to 4 and the 5th respondent has remained exparte wherein respondents 1 to 4 have admitted the partition held on 24. 11. 1983 and the allotment of `a'schedule in favour of 5th respondent and would submit that there was no oral partition in the year 1991 nor did the same get reduced into writing on 16. 4. 1992 nor has the petitioner been put in possession of the suit properties nor the petitioner has become the owner; that the 5th respondent who was the independent owner of the suit properties and in possession had not only sold the properties to the third and fourth respondents on 13. 3. 1995 but also put them in possession and enjoyment and that the sale deed is binding on the minors and thereafter they sold the properties on 15. 9. 1998 in favour of the first respondent, who from that date onwards is in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and all other averments regarding possession, payment of kist and other demands are denied as false and ultimately would end up that it is a vexatious suit and in these circumstances, there is no necessity for any trespass to take place and therefore would ultimately oppose the petition praying to dismiss the same with costs.