A plaintiff must establish clear title and precise boundaries to maintain a suit for declaratory relief regarding property ownership.

JUDGMENT :

N. Sathish Kumar, J.

Aggrieved over the decree and judgment of the trial Court dismissing the suit filed for declaration and for partition, the present appeal has been filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs.

2. The parties are arrayed as per their own ranking before the trial Court.

3. Chinnadurai Samuttiar was the husband of the first plaintiff and they had three sons and a daughter. The second plaintiff and the first defendant are their sons and the third plaintiff is their daughter. Their eldest son Dhanaraj died and the fourth plaintiff is the wife of the said Dhanraj. The property originally belonged to one Parasurama Padayachi. He has settled the properties in favour Sellapangi, who was then minor, by a registered settlement deed dated 07.05.1965. In the said settlement, life estate was reserved to Sellapangi on the said Parasurama Padayachi marrying her and vested remainder to the male children to be born to the settlor and settlee. The said Sellapangi along with her minor son Rajendran sold the suit properties by virtue of a sale deed dated 13.06.1976 to Chinnadurai Samuttiar. The said Chinnadurai Samuttiar died leaving behind the plaintiffs and the first defendant and one Dhanraj, who is the father of the second defendant. After the death of the Chinnadurai, the first plaintiff and her eldest son Dhanraj executed a simple mortgage in the year 1982 and the patta also stand in the name of Chinnadurai. Therefore, according to the plaintiffs, the suit property belong to the plaintiffs and the defendants 1 an 2. The third defendant has purchased the 'B' schedule property by virtue of sale deeds dated 31.08.2005 and 19.09.2005. The vendor of the third defendant has no title to convey the suit property. The third defendant is making an attempt to trespass into the suit property. Hence, the suit.

4. The defendants 1 and 2 assailed with the plaintiffs.

5. The third defendant denied the allegations in the plaint. According her, the property belong to one Vellaiammal and her minor children. They sold the property to this defendant on 31.08.2005 for valid consideration. Similarly the second item of the ‘B’ schedule property was purchased from Raghavan and his son Udhayasuriyan on 19.09.2005. Ever since the date of purchase, the third defendant was in possession of the property and revenue records also stand in her name. According to her, Sellapangi did not have any right or title covered under the settlement deed dated 07.05.1965. The said sale deed dated 30.06.1976 is invalid. The plaintiffs were never in possession of the property. The survey number for the first item of the property is 95/2 and 95/5 covered under patta No.552. The property belong to Vellaiammal and others and the third defendant has purchased the property from them. Similarly, survey No.139/14A and 139/14B was in possession of the predecessors-in-title of the third defendant. They sold the property to the third defendant for valid consideration.

6. In the reply statement filed by the plaintiffs, it is their contention that the since the vendors of the third defendant had no title, the possession of the plaintiffs cannot be denied.

7. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the trial Court :

1. Whether the suit properties were belonging to Parasurama Padayachi?

2. Whether Parasurama Padayachi settled the suit properties in favour of one Sellapangi on 07.05.1965?

3. Whether the sale deed dated 30.06.1976 executed by Sellapangi is legal, valid and binding upon the defendants?

4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration of title over the suit properties?

5. Whether the first item of the suit properties were belonging to Aruna and Amudhan?

6. Whether the second item of the suit properties were belonging to Raghavan and Udhayasurian?

7. Whether the sale deeds dated 31.08.2005 and 19.09.2005 are legal, valid and binding upon the plaintiffs?

8. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to 11/15 share in the suit property?

9. Whether