JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the judgment and decree for the Additional Subordinate Court, Chengleput in A.S.No.11 of 1993, dated 14.10.1993, the defendants in O.S.No.6 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurantakam, have filed this second appeal.

2. The case of the plaintiff-in-brief is as follows: (a) The suit properties originally belonged to one Govindasamy Gounder, who is the father-in-law of the plaintiff. He had been in possession and enjoyment of the same for over many years. All the revenue records were standing in the name of the said Govindasamy Gounder. (b) On various dates during the year 1960, the said Govindasamy Gounder purchased the items 3 to 7 referred to in the plaint schedule from the first defendant by way of oral purchase and he obtained items 1 and 2 from his mother Periyamukkal Muniammal. Thereafter, the said Govindasamy Gounder had executed a settlement deed in favour of his wife Ambujammal on 17.11.1961. The said Ambujammal enjoyed that property as an absolute owner and during the course of her enjoyment she mortgaged the property to one Ramaiah and one Devendran under the registered mortgage deeds dated 18.8.1975 and 5.6.1980 respectively. Later on, the said mortgage was discharged. Thereafter, the said Ambujammal sold the suit properties to the plaintiff for a valuable consideration on 8.2.1983 by executing a sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff took possession of the suit properties and enjoyed the same till the filing of the suit. All the revenue records stands in the name of the plaintiff. During the course of enjoyment, the plaintiff put up a motor pumpset in the suit properties. For that he obtained electric connection from the electricity board in his name. The plaintiff and his predecessors have perfected title to the suit properties by virtue of long and continuous possession and enjoyment beyond the statutory period. Since the first defendant with an ulterior motive interfered with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff without any basis or right, the plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendants. Since the defendants attempted to trespass into the land of the plaintiff on 16.12.1997, the plaintiff approached the civil Court for declaration and injunction against the defendants 1 and 2.

3. The averments made in the written statement of the second defendant are as follows:

(a) The claim of the plaintiff that the suit property originally belonged to one Govindasamy Gounder is denied by the second defendant. The said Govindasamy Gounder never purchased the said property by way of oral purchase from the first defendant during the year 1960. There was no such oral sale effected between the first defendant and the said Govindasamy Gounder. The second defendant also denied the execution of the settlement deed in favour of Ambujammal on 17.11.1961 as incorrect and the same was created only for the purpose of grabbing the properties from the defendants. Therefore, those documents were created to file a suit against the defendants. Since the first defendant was residing at Malaysia, the second defendant was asked to maintain the properties of the first defendant. The alleged sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by Ambujammal is not a valid one. For selling the same the vendor did not possess any right over the suit property. Taking advantage of the fact that the first defendant is not residing in the village, the said Govindasamy has changed the patta by influencing the revenue officials. The patta, which stands in the name of Govindasamy Gounder and subsequent transfer, is not at all valid and not binding on the defendants. In fact, items 3 to 7 of the suit properties were purchased by the father of the first defendant under a registered sale deed dated 7.3.1934 for a sale consideration of Rs.267 from one Murukka Gounder and Danapal Gounder. The first defendant inherited the first and second items of the properties from his grand Mother. When

Click Here to Read the rest of this document