ORDER: This civil revision petition is directed against the order of District Munsif, Srivaikuntam dated 3.12.2002 in I.A.No.775 of 2002 in O.S.No.136 of 2001, dismissing the petition filed under O.8, Rule 9, C.P.C. - receipt of reply statement filed by the plaintiff. Revision petitioner is the plaintiff.

2. Relevant facts necessitated for disposal of this civil revision petition could briefly be stated thus:

Suit property relates to

Nazereth village

Punjai Land S.No.220/1. . . 7.18 acres on the

North Eastern side

Out of 9.38 acres

New Sub-Division . . . . 220/1A.

Case of the plaintiff is that the suit property belonged to her mother - Gnanammal. Plaintiff’s mother - Gnanammal executed a settlement deed in respect of the plaint first schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. On 18.9.1996 and 26.6.1997, the plaintiff alienated a portion of the first schedule property. The plaintiff claims to be in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property, In the month of September, 2000, the second defendant gave a petition, denying the title of the plaintiff to the Tahsildar. Upon enquiry, on 21.8.2001, the Tahsildar, Tiruchendur, cancelled the Patta issued in favour of the second defendant and granted the Patta to the plaint schedule property in favour of the plaintiff. Without any right in the suit property, the defendants have been attempting to trespass and interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and hence, the plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S.No.136 of 2001 on the file of District Munsif, Srivaikuntam, for declaration that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the second schedule property and for consequential permanent injunction.

3. Denying right of the plaintiff in the suit property, the defendants have filed written statement contending that the entire first schedule property originally belonged to Sarkuna Nadar and his wife Gnanammal and they were in possession and enjoyment of the same. After the death of Sarkuna Nadar and his wife Gnanammal, their sons Paulraj Nadar and late Sarkunam Daniel Nadar came into possession and enjoyment of the plaint schedule property. The said Paulraj Nadar died intestate leaving his son Jebaraj i.e. the second defendant as his legal heir.The said Sarkunam Daniel Nadar died intestate leaving behind his sons - first defendant-Joseph, Edward, George, daughter Rathinamani Sundari Gnanapushpam and Chandra, Rajan, Jeyantha as his legal heirs. Only the above persons are entitled to the first schedule property and they are in joint possession and enjoyment of the same. The patta granted by the Revenue Department is only in continuation of ancient revenue records. The second defendant is paying Kist to the first schedule property. The plaintiff and one Gnanam David claimed right to the plaint schedule property by fabricating certain documents and are not entitled to the suit property. The patta granted by the Tahsildar, Tiruchendur and other receipts filed along with the plaint would not create any right upon the plaintiff over the plaint schedule property. The settlement deed filed along with the plaint is a self-serving document, which would not create any right to the plaintiff over the plaint scheduled properties. The sale deeds said to have been executed by the plaintiff would neither prove plaintiff’s title nor extinguish the defendants title over the property.

4. Since the defendants have denied title of the plaintiff, the revision petitioner/plaintiff filed I.A.No.775 of 2002 praying the Court to receive the reply statement. In the reply statement, the plaintiff has pleaded that “she came to know about the Registered Will executed by her adopted father Jesudasan Augustus Masilamani dated 12.21923 and the Will was proved to be genuine by an order in O.P.No. 31 of 1969 dated 23.8.1969 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, and she came to know about the Will and the Letters of Administration only recently”. The plaintiff has pra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document