RAJENDRAN Vs. RAMANUJA REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above second appeal has been filed by the plaintiffs in O.S. No.2129 of 1979 on the file of learned Additional District Munsif, Villupuram and the appellants before the first appellate court namely, Subordinate Judge, Villupuram in A.S. No.104 of 1982. THE plaintiffs have filed the suit for declaration of their title to the suit properties and for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with their possession and enjoyment of the same or in the alternative, for possession in case the defendant trespasses during the pendency of the suit and for determination of the future profits under O.20, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure. THE case of the plaintiffs before the trial court was that the suit properties were purchased by one Muthu Reddiar vendor of the plaintiffs in 1944 and 1945 and he had been in possession and enjoyment of the same, that he sold an extent of 52 1/2 cents, of which, the suit first item is a portion to the first plaintiff and the suit second item to both the plaintiffs under two separate sale deeds dated 21.9.1979. THE suit first item is of an extent of 15 cents. After the sale in favour of the plaintiffs, it is claimed that they have taken possession of both the items of the properties and while they tried to plough up the lands on 10.10.1979, the defendant obstructed them from doing so and driven the plaintiffs to the necessity of filing of the suit, praying for the relief as referred to supra.

(2.) THE defendant has filed a written statement initially opposing the claim of the plaintiffs. Subsequently, the plaintiffs have got the plaint amended by claiming also title by adverse possession and also challenging the purchase by the defendant from one Balarama Reddiar. THE defendant also claimed that Muthu Reddiar, the vendor of the plaintiffs, and his wife executed a settlement deed on 7.10.1975 of the lands in favour of one Balarama Reddiar and his wife Kamalammal and not only the said settlement deed was accepted and acted upon, but the defendant also had purchased the items settled in favour of Balarama Reddiar under a sale deed dated 5.10.1979 for valid consideration and he is continuing in possession of the suit properties. It was also stated that in O.S. No.308 of 1979 to which Muthu Reddiar and the present defendant were parties and which was in respect of the entire extent of 1.05 acres, a compromise was effected whereby 15 cents out of the said extent was allotted to Muthu Reddiar and reasoning 90 cents to the present defendant and the boundaries as set out in the plaint in respect of the first item of 15 cents as amended are not correct and that though the defendant had acquired legal right in respect of the properly given to him under the compromise he has purchased the same by way of abundant caution from Balarama Reddiar and his wife also.

(3.) AGGRIEVED, the plaintiffs pursued the matter on appeal before the Sub court, Villupuram, learned first appellate Judge also confirmed the findings and conclusions of the learned trial judge and dismissed the appeal.