RAMU MUDALIAR Vs. PACHAYAMMAL; PANDURANGAN; THIRUMANGAI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff who had lost before both the Courts below is the appellant herein.

(2.) The suit was filed for declaration of title and for permanent injunction. The plaintiff claims his right in Ex.A1 dated 08.07.1997, having purchased the same from the first defendant. The first defendant herself derived her title through a decree in O.S.No.48 of 1995 on the file of District Munsif Court, Madurantakam, which was decreed on 12.11.1996 marked as Exs.A4 and A5. The suit property is an extent of 0.38 cents in Survey No.349 in Thinnallur Village, Madurantakam. In a suit filed by the first defendant in O.S.No.48 of 1995, the suit property was shown as Item No.3. The total extent was 1 acre 50 = cents. The said suit was decreed ex-parte in favour of the first defendant, declaring her 1/4th share. Based on the strength of the decree, the first defendant had sold the property to the plaintiff an extent of 0.25 cents on 15.05.1997 and an extent of 0.13 cents on 08.07.1997. The documents were marked as Exs.A1 and A2 respectively. Thus, the claim is made for 0.38 cents by the plaintiff. The second and third defendants also claimed to have purchase the same property from the first defendant, thereby, casting cloud on the title of the plaintiff. Hence, the suit is for declaration of title.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendants 2 and 3 as the first defendant remained ex-parte. According to the defendants, the suit properties belonged to one Veerasamy and his sons Pachayappan and Seeman. Out of the total extent of property, the said Veerasamy had 1 acre 50 = cents, which was in possession and enjoyment of Veerasamy and his sons. Pachaiyammal, the first defendant and one Indiraniammal are the daughters of Veersamy. Both the daughters were got married long back and they have no title over the suit property. Veerasamy and Seeman who were in joint possession of the 1 acre 50 = cents and sold the same to the wife of Pachaiappan, whose name is Chellammal. The said sale was on 02.03.1987 under Ex.B.1. From the date of purchase, the said chellammal had been in possession of the same and in her own capacity sold the property in favour of the third defendant herein, subsequent, to which the patta was also transferred in the name of the third defendant. Therefore, according to the defendants, on the date of sale by the first defendant, pachaiammal, the said property was not available for sale. Even before the suit in O.S.No.48 of 1995 was filed by the first defendant, there was a partition between the Veerasamy and his children. Therefore, the said property was not available for partition even on the date of filing of the suit. Hence, the defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.