IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 06.12.2023 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR S.A.No.455 of 2017 and CMP.No.11412 of 2017 Latvian Evangelical Lutheran Church Rep.by its Vice President Kazhuthur Village Tittakudic Taluk ...Appellant Vs.

Chitra ... Respondent Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2015 made in A.S.No.4 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Sub-Judge, Viruthachalam, reversing the judgment and decree dated 17.12.2014 made in OS.No.171 of

2003 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate, Tittakudi.

For Appellant : Mr.R.Mubarak Basha For Respondent : Mrs.Hema Sampath Senior Counsel for Mrs.R.Meenal

JUDGMENT

The defendant in the suit is the appellant. The respondent herein filed a suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession of vacant site and mandatory injunction to remove the superstructure found in the suit property. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant preferred an appeal in A.S.No.4 of 2015 on the file of the Additional Sub- Court, Viruthachalam. The First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and allowed the appeal granting decree as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant is before this Court.

2. According to the respondent/plaintiff, the suit property originally belonged to the father of the plaintiff Ramanathan. He executed a settlement deed on 04.07.1977 in favour of the plaintiff's mother Marudhambal. The said settlement deed was executed at the time of Ramanathan marrying with Marudhambal. Since Ramanathan's wife Marudhambal was minor at that point of time, in the settlement deed Marudhambal was represented by her father Periyasamy. On the date of settlement deed the possession of suit property and other properties were handed over to Periyasamy on behalf of Marudhambal. As per the terms of settlement, the suit property was settled in favour of unborn children of Marudhambal and Ramanathan with life estate in favour of Marudhambal. Being the daughter of Marudhambal the plaintiff was entitled to the suit property under the terms of settlement deed. It was also stated in the settlement deed that during the life time of Marudhambal, she was not entitled to alienate the property to the third parties. Violating the terms of settlement the settlor namely Ramanathan sold the property in favour of the third parties and now the defendant had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It was claimed that the plaintiff was born on 03.06.1983 and the suit was filed within three years from the date of attaining majority.

3. The appellant/defendant filed a written statement raising a plea that the settlement deed dated 04.07.1977 executed by Ramanathan was not acted upon and the possession was not given to Marudhambal or her father Periyasamy. The appellant also disputed the paternity of the plaintiff. In the additional written statement it was pleaded by the appellant that document dated 04.07.1977 was only a Will not settlement and therefore, during his lift time Ramanathan was entitled to alienate as per his wish.

4. The appellant/defendant also raised a plea of non joinder of necessary party viz., Ramanathan and Marudhambal. It was also averred by the appellant that Ramanathan sold the suit property to one Samikannu on 29.08.1980 and from that person the appellant purchased the property under documents dated 18.02.1986, 11.08.1987 and 19.09.1990. After purchase the appellant had put up a church, school and memorial in the suit property by spending amount and the appellant had been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property for several years. It is also averred by the appellant that it was a bonafide purchaser of the suit property. On these pleadings the appellant sought for dismissal of the suit.

5. Before the trial Court, the respondent/plaintiff was examined as PW1 and her mother Marudhambal was