JUDGEMENT :-

RAGHAVAN, J.

The defendant is the appellant. The suit is for a declaration of the plaintiff's title to the suit property and for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with her possession.

2. The plaintiff's case is that she purchased the suit property under a registered sale deed dated 7-12-1949 from one Vasudeva Gramani, who was the previous owner of the property, that ever since the purchase, she has been in possession of the suit property and none else has any interest in the same, that the said property is situate in an erstwhile Zamindari, which was taken over by the Government, and the patta for the suit property, prior to the taking over by the Government, stood in the name of Vasudeva Gramani, her vendor, that later after the Zamin was taken over by the State of Madras the plaintiff was granted a patta and subsequent to the taking over of the zamin by the State of Madras the plaintiff has been paying kist for the suit land and continues to be in possession of the same, that the defendant has no interest in the suit property, and that he has no title to any part of the suit property and his interference with her possession is unlawful and illegal and the present suit was filed for the reliefs mentioned above.

2. The defendant filed a written statement contending that the suit property originally did not belong to Vasudeva exclusively, but it belonged to four brothers, Vasudeva Gramani, Nandngopal Gramani, Nataraja Gramani and Rajaram Gramani, each having an equal share, that Vasudeva Gramani was not the exclusive owner and that the plaintiff is not entitled to anything more than what her vendor was entitled to. The further defence raised is that the purchase of the suit property from Nataraja and Rajaram on 12-4-1965 was for valuable consideration, that he was put in possession of half of the suit property, that from that day onwards the plaintiff and defendant were in possession of the properties in equal shares, that the plaintiff admitted the right and title of the defendant, that the defendant is enjoying the eastern half while the plaintiff is enjoying the western half and in the circumstances the plaintiff has no cause of action and that the relief by way of injunction cannot be granted.

3. The trial Court dismissed the suit holding that the suit property was the joint family property of Vasudeva Nandagopal, Nataraja and Rajaram, that Ex. B1 under which the defendant claimed title was a genuine document and that consequently the defendant would be entitled to the eastern half while the plaintiff would be entitled to the western half of the suit property. However, the learned trial Judge erroneously dismissed the suit.

4. The plaintiff filed A. S. 317 of 1966 to the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput. The learned Judge held that Vasudeva Gramani was the sole exclusive owner of the suit property and that consequently the plaintiff was entitled to the entirety of the property and that she was put in possession of the suit property as per Ex. A.2 in 1949. The learned Judge further held that Ex. B.1 would not convey any title to the purchasers. The learned Judge also observed that the Revenue authorities had granted a fair patta Ex. A.5 in 1962 in favour of the plaintiff, although the defendant had also applied for patta. This circumstance was also taken note of by the learned Judge. In the result, the plaintiffs appeal was allowed and the suit decreed as prayed for. The defendant has filed the above second appeal.

5. When the case was taken up for hearing, a memo of compromise entered into between the parties was filed into Court. As the plaintiff died during the pendency of the second appeal, the legal representatives of the plaintiff were brought on record. As some of the legal representatives are minors represented by their guardian, I had to scrutinise the compromise and as I considered that the compromi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document