The judgment establishes the importance of proving property rights and titles, the limitations of permissive possession, and the applicability of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: APPEAL under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the common judgment and decrees dated 30.6.2015 in A.S.Nos.7 and 8 of 2010 on the file of the First Additional District and Sessions Court, Vellore reversing the common judgment and decrees dated 29.4.2009 in O.S.Nos.32 of 2005 and 45 of 2007 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Gudiyatham, Vellore.)

Common Judgment

1. The issue involved in both these second appeals are common and hence, they are taken up together, heard and disposed of through this common judgment.

2. The appellant was the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent namely Perumal in O.S.No.32 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Gudiyatham. She was the plaintiff in the suit filed by her in O.S.No.45 of 2007 on the file of the same Court against the same respondent and another.

3. For the sake of convenience, the rank of the parties will be identified as arrayed in O.S.No.32 of 2005.

4. The respondent herein - plaintiff filed the suit seeking for the relief of declaration of title over B schedule property and for a direction to the appellant herein - defendant to deliver possession of the B schedule property.

5. The case of the plaintiff is that he and his father Dhanapal Mudaliar constituted a Hindu joint family and A schedule property was the total property consisting of a tiled house and vacant site. It is stated that the A schedule property fell to the share of the father of the plaintiff under a registered partition deed dated 27.7.1950. According to the plaintiff, he and his father were jointly enjoying the A schedule property, which was claimed to be a joint family property.

6. The further case of the plaintiff was that the defendant is the daughter of the second wife of his father and according to the plaintiff, she is not entitled for any share in the A schedule property. That apart, the defendant already got married in the year 1988 and she has given birth to two male children and a female child and she is settled in her matrimonial home. Accordingly, the defendant is not entitled for the right conferred under the State Amendment made to the Hindu Succession Act, which came into force on 25.3.1989.

7. The plaintiff further pleaded that his father sold his share through a registered sale deed dated 12.1.1993, marked as Ex.A1, in favour of the plaintiff and possession was also handed over to the plaintiff. As such, the plaintiff is claiming to be the absolute owner of the entire A schedule property. The father of the plaintiff died in the year 1994. The mother of the defendant had executed a registered settlement deed dated 20.2.1995, marked as Ex.B23, in favour of the defendant as if she is the owner of the B schedule property. Based on this document, the defendant filed a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.159 of 2004 (renumbered as O.S.No.45 of 2007) with respect to the B schedule property against the plaintiff and another. Thus, the defendant was attempting to create a cloud over the title of the plaintiff with respect to the B schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking for the relief of declaration of title and to deliver possession of the B schedule property.

8. The case of the defendant was that the A schedule property was allotted in favour of her father Dhanapal Mudaliar under a registered partition deed dated 27.7.1950. He, in turn, through oral partition that took place on 05.2.1987, allotted the B schedule property in favour of his second wife Vatchalammal. She was in possession and enjoyment of the B schedule property till the death of her husband in the year 1994. Thereafter, the said Vatchalammal executed a settlement deed dated 20.2.1995 in favour of the defendant and possession was also handed over to her. The defendant continued to possess and enjoy the B schedule property by paying the house tax and the electricity charges. The grievance of the defendant is that the plaintiff attempted to trespass into the B schedule property an