DORAISWAMI PILLAI (DIED) AND ORS. Vs. S.K. MUNUSWAMI MUDALIAR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Defendants 8 and 9 remained ex parte. The other defendants filed three sets of written statement.

(2.) The first defendant claimed the suit property as his ancestral property. According to him, his father purchased the same in the name of Shanmugham Pillai, in whom he had great confidence. He took the sale deed in the name of Shanmugham so that his sons through the first wife might not claim the same as joint family property. He paid the consideration of Rs. 50 and took possession of the property. Ever since then, he was in possession of the suit property and also the title -deed. Shanmugham Pillai never claimed any right in the suit property. In the family partition, the suit property fell to the share of defendants 1 to 3. The first defendant sold an extent of 45 x 60 feet of the suit property to the sixth defendant about 22 years ago for Rs. 400, and ever since then the sixth defendant has been in possession and enjoyment of that portion by putting up a fence and stocking hayricks. The first defendant permitted defendants 4 and 5 to occupy portions of the suit property about twenty -five years ago. The first defendant was never managing the suit property on behalf of Shanmugham Pillai or his heirs. He further contended that he has been using the rest of the portion of threshing -floor. He therefore prayed for a dismissal of the suit.

(3.) Defendants 2 to 6 filed a common written statement adopting the written statement of the first defendant and further contended that the plaintiff's vendors had no title to the suit property and that they were never in possession of the same at any time within twelve years before suit. They further contended that the suit property is the ancestral property defendants 1 to 3 and that it has always been in their possession and enjoyment by virtue of a partition, which took place about twenty -five years ago. The first defendant put up a kiln in the suit site more than fifteen years ago and so defendants 1 to 3 are entitled to it. The first defendant sold an extent of 45 x 60 feet of the suit site to the sixth defendant for Rs. 400 about twenty years ago and ever since "he has been in exclusive possession of that portion by putting up a fence and stocking hayricks. Defendants 4 and 5 are in possession of a portion of the suit site for the past fifteen years and twenty -five years respectively and therefore the plaintiff has no right to the suit site .