PARAMESWARI Vs. P JYOSHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants, who lost below the Courts below are the appellants. The respondent/plaintiff filed the Suit in O.S.No.59 of 2008 on the file of the Sub-Court, Poonamallee, praying for the relief of declaration, declaring that she is the absolute owner of the suit property admeasuring to an extent of 3300 sq.ft. in S.No.93 in Athi Pattu Village, Ambattur Taluk, Tiruvellore District and also for a direction to the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the suit property after removing whatever construction put up and further directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.12,000/- as past damages from 28.03.2008 to 08.04.2008 and also to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- per day as future damages from the date of plaint till the date of delivering vacant possession.

(2.) The plaintiff/first respondent would aver that land admeasuring 3 acres and 99 cents situated in S.No.93, Athipattu Village, Ambathur Taluk, originally belonged to one N.Balaraman and he divided the said lands into plots of 49 cents each and created sale deeds in favour of several persons, namely Tvl. Ramachandran, Kumaravelu, Naryanamurthy, Kothandaraman, Sekar, Dharmalingam and Others and they joined together and formed an unapproved layout in the said land. The portion of the land purchased by Ramachandran, Kumaravelu and Narayanamurthy runs north to south contiguously and the portion of the land shown as Plot No.42 in the rough sketch of the layout falls within the 49 cents purchased by Kumaravelu and the plaintiff purchased the same from Kumaravelu under registered sale deed dated 08.01.1997, marked as Ex.A8. Ramachandran, who is the owner of northern side of the land was also made as a party to the said sale deed. It is the claim of the plaintiff that after purchase, he levelled it and fenced it and started enjoying it absolutely as the owner. The plaintiff would further aver that the defendants who are utter strangers to the property claims right over Plot No.42, based on the sale deed executed by one Kalidass on 21.02.2008, marked as Ex.B8 and they traced title from one Narayana Murthy, who sold it to Kalappa Naicker on 18.9.1992, marked as Ex.B5. The legal heirs of Kalappa Naicker had sold the property to one M.R.Ravi on 24.03.2016, marked as Ex.B6 and the legal heirs of M.R.Ravi had sold it to Kalidass on 11.05.2007, marked as Ex.B7. It is also stated by the plaintiff that on 28.03.2008, the defendants had trespassed into the suit property and taking steps to put up a construction and therefore, came forward to file the Suit.

(3.) The defendants 1 and 2 had entered appearance and the third defendant, though served with summons, did not enter appearance and was called absent and set exparte. The first defendant in the written statement contended that the suit property was part of land in an unapproved layout and the rough sketch along with the plaint cannot be relied upon and as regards, topography, only the Taluk Surveyor or any other suitable person of revenue department can draw the appropriate sketch. It is the case of the first defendant that Plot Nos.42 and 43 was originally purchased by Kalappa Naicker in the year 1992, vide Sale Deed/Ex.B5 from Narayana Murthy and Ramachandran and ever since from purchase, he was in possession and enjoyment and the records was also mutated in his favour and after the demise of Kalappa Naicker, his legal heirs sold Plot Nos.42 and 43 to M.R.Ravi, vide Sale Deed dated 24.03.2006/Ex.B6 and patta was transferred in his name and after the demise of M.R.Ravi, his legal heirs sold the entire extent admeasuring 3929 sq.ft. to one Kalidass through Sale Deed dated 11.05.2007/Ex.B7 and from the said Kalidass, the first defendant purchased Plot No.42 and portion of Plot No.43 measuring 3929 sq.ft. through Sale Deed dated 21.02.2008/Ex.B8. The first defendant also took a stand that the vendors to the documents in title have not been impleaded as parties and the defendants 2 and 3 have no connection with the property.