- (1.) THE concurrent Judgments and decrees passed in Original Suit No.41 of 2005 by the Additional District Munsif Court, Thoothukudi and in Appeal Suit No.131 of 2006 by the Sub Court, Thoothukudi are being challenged in the present second appeal.
(2.) THE respondent herein as plaintiff has instituted Original Suit No.41 of 2005 on the file of the trial Court for the reliefs of partition and separate possession of his half share in the suit properties, wherein the deceased first appellant has been shown as sole defendant. In the plaint it is averred that both the plaintiff and defendant are brothers and both of them are having two more brothers by name Veerama Reddiar and Athilinga Reddiar. The suit properties are the absolute properties of their parents namely Vaiyappa Reddiar and Avudaiyammal. The plaintiff has served as a Building Inspector in Neyveli. The plaintiff has used to come to suit village during holidays. In the year 1975, the other brothers namely Veerama Reddiar and Athilinga Reddiar have taken their shares in the family properties and got separated. In the year 1996, the plaintiff has asked the defendant to effect partition with regard to suit properties. The defendant has refused to accede the demand made by the plaintiff and ultimately a legal notice dated 20.03.1997 has been issued to the defendant. After receipt of the same, he has given a false reply notice. Under the said circumstances, the present suit has been instituted for the reliefs sought for in the plaint.
(3.) IN the written statement filed on the side of the defendant, it is averred that the relationship mentioned in the plaint is correct. In the year 1961, in the presence of some elders/ relatives a partition has takenplace, wherein a property which stands in the name of the plaintiff as well as a property which stands in the name of the defendant have been given to the share of the plaintiff. The suit properties have been allotted to the share of the defendant. It is false to aver that the plaintiff is having half share in all the suit properties. The defendant has executed a sale deed dated 16.08.1961 in favour of the plaintiff. Likewise, the plaintiff has sold a property in favour of the defendant by virtue of the sale deed dated 02.12.1981. Apart from the said sale deeds, an agreement has come into existence on 07.12.1981 and therefore it is false to contend that the suit properties are common properties of both the plaintiff and defendant. Since the defendant has had enjoyed the suit properties from the year 1961 by way of ousting the plaintiff, the defendant has acquired title to the suit properties by virtue of adverse possession. There is no merit in the suit and the same deserves to be dismissed.;