JUDGMENT: Defendant in O.S.No.24 of 1986 on the file of the District Munsif, Arakkonam has preferred the present second appeal aggrieved against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.123 of 1987 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge at Vellore, dated 12.7.1989 reversing the decree and judgment of the trial Court dated 26.10.1987.

2. The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows: Plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his title to the suit property and for permanent injunction. The portion marked as A, B, C, D, in the plaint plan was the last plot or the Western side after selling the plot to Munikrishna Reddy by Sankara Naidu. The said Sankara Naidu stating that is the last plot flanked on both sides by the property of the said Munikrishna Naidu on the East and Kanniappa Naidu on the West sold the said A, B, C, D, plan marked land by giving all boundaries in favour of M.Ramakrishna Pillai under a sale deed dated 10.10.1946 for valuable consideration and delivered possession of the same. In turn the said Ramakrishna Pillai sold the A, B, C, D, mentioned punja land with the boundaries in favour of the plaintiff under a sale deed dated 17.11.1957. Immediately the plaintiff constructed a house therein and subsequently reconstructed the house as a modern one and fenced the entire area along A, B, C, D, with compound walls. The plaintiffs predecessors in title have perfected their title to the suit property. They submitted a plan and only after approval, the house was reconstructed. The plaintiff availed loan from House Mortgage Bank for reconstruction of the house. The portion marked as E, B, C, F, was kept appurtenant to the main building and had been all these years used by the plaintiff forstoring all his articles, keeping utensils for washing and also for using his cattle heads being stationed there. The plaintiff alone is entitled to the suit property along with the adjoining house. He also had put up a thatched shed in the property and is enjoying the same. The defendant attempted to interfere with his peaceful and absolute possession of the property. Hence, the suit.

3. Defendant admitted that the suit property originally belonged to Sankara Naidu. The disputed site lies to the West of the plaintiff’s house and site and not to the East of it. It is not true to state that Sankara Naidu represented that A, B, C, D, portion in the plaint plan was the last plot flanked on both sides by the property of Munikrishna Naidu on the East and Kanniappa Naidu on the West. It is false to state that Sankara Naidu sold the A, B, C, D, portion to Ramakrishna Pillai under the sale deed dated 10.10.1946 and in turn Ramakrishna Pillai sold the property to the plaintiff under sale deed dated 17.11.1957. The plaintiff is not the resident of his house and it is occupied by his tenant. Plaintiff is not entitled to the suit property as the same was not sold by Sankara Naidu to his predecessor in title. There was no thatched shed in the suit property. The plaintiff cannot claim any title by adverse possession in this property. The measurements given in the sale deeds are exact and correct. The property sold by Sankara Naidu to Ramakrishna Pillai was a site measuring 32’ East to West and 75’ North to South. Sankara Naidu sold number of plots East of the property to Ramakrishna Pillai under sale deed dated 10.10.1946 and those plots also measure 32’ East to West. The plaintiff is not entitled to claim a greater extent then what is comprised in his sale deed. The plaintiff has constructed a house to an extent of 22’ 7" out of the East West 32’ portion and keeps the remaining 9’ 9" West of the house at vacant. The plaintiff had never any title to 23’ 6" East to West on the northern side. Taking advantage of misdescription of the Western boundary in the sale deed dated 10.1.1946 in favour of Ramakrishna Pillai, the plaintiff is now laying unlawful claim to the suit property. The report of the Advocate Commission will falsify the allegatio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document