JUDGMENT: This second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.1996 made in A.S.No.22 of 1996 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Devakottai thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.2.1996 made in O.S.No.92 of 1995 by the Court of District Munsif, Devakottai.

2. In fact, the respondent herein has filed the suit in O.S.No.92 of 1995 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Devakottai pleading that the suit properties are situate at Eluvankottai in Devakottai Taluk; that the plaintiff went to Singapore in 1937 and used to earn his money and come back home; that he purchased the suit properties from out of his self-earning and through registered sale deeds, Item No.1 by the deed dated 12.9.1949 and Items No.2 and 3 under the deed dated 29.6.1959; that during his absence in India, his co-brother one Alagesh looked after the lands cultivating the same on his behalf; that the plaintiff thus has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties from the date of purchase till the date of suit; that the sale deed pattas and kist receipts were in the custody of the plaintiff’s brother Kalimuthu who was the husband of the 4th defendant and father of defendants 1 and 3 and father-in-law of second defendant, who is the wife of the first defendant; that the said Kalimuthu died in January, 1994; that the plaintiff ultimately came to India on 24.9.1994 and demanded the original sale deeds, pattas and kist receipts from the defendants but they refused to give the same; that on the contrary, they challenged his life; that the pattas stood in his name in patta No.388; that through the said Alagesh, who cultivated the lands in the last fasli, the defendants openly challenged not only the plaintiff’s possession of the suit properties but also his life and since the plaintiff had to leave India urgently, he appointed one Kaliammal, daughter- in-law of Karuppiah, another brother of the plaintiff, as his power of Attorney Agent leaving instructions to file the suit against the defendants further entrusting possession of the suit properties; that the defendants denied title of the plaintiff to the suit properties and threatened the physical possession of the same and hence the suit for declaration of the title of the plaintiff to the suit properties and for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and for costs.

3. In the written statement filed by the first defendant, besides generally denying the plaint averments, he would also specifically state that the settlement dated 13.3.1980, said to have been executed by the plaintiff Mayazhagu is contrary to truth; that regarding the suit properties the Inam settlement deed was executed by his father- in-law Kalimuthu alias Kaliyan in favour of defendants 1 and 2 wherein the plaintiff Mayazhagu is an attestor and the partition that took place among the family members just prior to the Inam Settlement have been suppressed in the plaint since it is against the case of the plaintiff.

4. The defendants would further contend in the written statement that Karuppiah. Kalimuthu alias Kaliyan and Mayazhagu are brothers of whom Karuppiah is dead: that the Karuppiah’s son is one Subbaiah, whose wife is the Power of Attorney Agent of the plaintiff Kaliyammal; that the said Kalimuthu is the father of defendants 1 and 3 and husband of the 4th defendant and father-in-law of the second defendant; that the plaintiff Mayazhagu is at Singapore and was in the habit of paying visit to India; that the joint family was managed only by Kalimuthu alias Kaliyan; that the suit properties and yet another property were purchased in the name of Mayazhagu by Kalimuthu for the benefit of the family and from out of the income derived from the undivided Hindu joint family and those properties were considered to be the properties of joint family only; that since the son of the deceased Kar

Click Here to Read the rest of this document