Claim of title based on inheritance requires clear pleading and proof of possession, especially when challenged by defendants.

JUDGMENT

The appellant is the plaintiff in O.S.No.592/2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Puducherry. She filed the suit for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the Trial Court and at appropriate places, their rank in the present second appeal would also be indicated.

3. The case of the plaintiff in a nutshell is as follows :

One Aryaputhri became entitled to the suit property through a Donation deed, dated 10.02.1908 (Ex.A1). After the death of Ariyaputhiri, his son Ponnusamy Gounder inherited the property. Ponnusamy Gounder had three sons by names Sivasankaran, Athikesavan and Raguraman. The plaintiff is the wife of Adhikesavan. Sivasankaran and Raguraman died as bachelors. Therefore, after the demise of Ponnusamy Goudner, his son, Adhikesavan, husband of the plaintiff inherited the properties. After the demise of Adhikesavan, the plaintiff became entitled to the suit property. The plaintiff is also in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by paying necessary tax to the Government. The defendants who are residing in the same locality are attempting to interfere with the peaceful possession of the suit property by the plaintiff and one such attempt was made on 15.02.2010. Hence, the suit.

4. The suit was resisted by the defendants on the following grounds:

i. All the allegations contained in the plaint are false.

ii. Ponnusamy Gounder had two daughters by names Savithri and Visalatchi. The father of the first defendant purchased a portion of the suit property from Savithri and Visalatchi through a registered sale deed dated 26.09.1983 (Ex.B1).

iii. As per law of succession prevailing in Puducherry, the mother's property would devolve upon daughters and hence the sons of Ponnusamy Gounder cannot claim any right over the suit property.

iv. Sivasankaran, one of the legal heirs of Ponnusamy Gounder executed a consent cum release deed, dated 07.05.1987 (Ex.B2).

v. The plaintiff has not clearly stated as to which part of the suit property she owns.

vi. A portion of the suit property (measuring 5 Kuzhi 8 veesams and one Kuzhi 12 veesams) was sold by the legal heirs of late Ponnusamy Gounder.

vii.The defendants are in possession of the remaining extent of the land and their possession is lawful.

viii.The plaintiff has given false information in the plaint. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:

i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for?

ii. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree and judgment for the relief sought for?

iii.To what relief the plaintiff is entitled?

6. In the Trial Court, the plaintiff examined herself and marked Ex.A1 to Ex.A6. The first defendant examined himself and two other witnesses and marked Ex.B1 to Ex.B10.

7. After full contest, the learned Trial Court Judge, vide his decree and judgment dated 21.12.2018, decreed the suit partly in favour of the plaintiff on the following grounds:

i. A perusal of the Donation deed, dated 10.02.1908 (ExA1)

executed in favour of Ariyaputhiri shows that certain properties were settled in his name and the suit property is shown as fifth item.

ii. The sale deed executed by Savithiri, daughter of Ponnusamy Gounder in favour of Ranganathan @ Damodharan is with regard to the land measuring an extent of 2 Kuzhi 12 vesam in R.S.No.96/8 in the suit village.

iii.The lands covered under Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are the lands in R.S.No.96/8 for which patta (Ex.A3) was also issued in favour of