ABDUL LATHEEF SAHIB Vs. RAJAMBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 22.12.2006, made in A.S.No.52 of 1995, on the file of the Additional Sub Judge, Tindivanam, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 18.04.1994, made in O.S.No.1229 of 1988, on the file of the District Munsif, Tindivanam.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience the parties in the appeal are referred to as they have been arrayed in the suit in O.S.No.1229 of 1988.

(3.) THE defendant had filed a written statement stating that the suit property did not belong to Zograbiammal and she has no right over the same. THE claim of the plaintiff Aayeeammal that she had sold the property to one Manickampillai, on 27.04.1929, has been denied, stating that the sale deed is neither true nor valid. It will not confer any title on Manickampillai, since the vendor had no right over the suit property. Manickampillai had never enjoyed the property. THE claim that after the death of Manickampillai his legal heirs were enjoying the suit property is false. THE suit property had originally belonged to one Muthusamypillai and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. Muthusamypillai had sold the suit property to one Gulab Hussain Khan Sayeb, by way of registered sale deed, dated 27.05.1942. After the purchase of the property, Gulab Hussain Khan Sayeb had taken possession of the property and had also obtained patta in his name. He had been paying the tax in his own right for about 12 years. Thus, he has prescribed title over the suit property by adverse possession. Gulab Hussain Khan Sayeb had mortgaged the suit property in favour of the Cooperative Bank, Tindivanam, for a Well loan. While so, a partition had taken place in the family of Gulab Hussain Khan Sayeb, on 21.03.1979, by a registered partition deed. In the said partition, the suit property was allotted to one of his sons Rahimankhan. Since then Rahimankhan had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property till the defendant had purchased it by way of registered sale deed for a valid consideration, on 12.04.1979. THEreafter, the patta had also been transferred in his name and he is paying the kist for the property. It is false to say that the defendant was trying to trespass into the suit property. After the purchase, the defendant is cultivating paddy and other crops by digging a Well. THE suit property is a fertile land and since the market value of the suit property had gone up, the plaintiffs had filed a vexatious suit, by attempting to grab the suit property.