The judgment underscores the necessity of credible documentary evidence in property disputes, particularly regarding title and possession.

Headnote:
Property - Ownership Dispute - Act Section List - The court analyzed the validity of partition deeds and wills to determine property ownership, emphasizing the importance of documented evidence in establishing title and possession.
Fact of the Case:

The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and injunction against the defendants, claiming ownership of a property based on historical partition deeds and wills. The defendants contested the claims, asserting ownership through a sale deed and challenging the plaintiffs' genealogy and property descriptions.
Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the plaintiffs' claims, confirming their title and possession based on historical documents, including partition deeds and wills, while rejecting the defendants' assertions due to lack of credible evidence.
Issues: The main issues included the validity of the plaintiffs' genealogy, the identification of the suit property, and the plaintiffs' title and possession over the property.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the plaintiffs provided sufficient documentary evidence to establish their title and possession, while the defendants failed to substantiate their claims with credible documentation.
Final Decision: The appeal suit is dismissed, confirming the trial court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.

JUDGMENT

The present Appeal Suit is preferred by the defendants 1 to 3 against the Judgment and Decree, dated 05.06.2015 passed in O.S. No.46 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District Court, Ramanathapuram.

2. The plaintiffs in the suit is the respondents 1 and 2 herein, the defendants 1 to 3 are the appellants herein and the defendants 4 to 9 are the respondents 3 to 8 herein. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred as plaintiffs and defendants as per the ranking in the suit.

3. The suit is filed for declaration to declare the suit property belonging to plaintiffs and the defendants 4 to 9 and consequential injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 3 from interfering in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

4. The brief facts are that originally the larger extent of the suit property and other properties are belonging to one Ganapathy Iyer and he was having two sons, namely, Perumal Iyer and Seetharam Iyer. The said Perumal Iyer’s wife died at the young age and he is not having any issues. He had adopted seven years old Sathyanarayanan, son of Gopala Iyer. After adoption, he was given the family name of Ganapathy Iyer along with his name and he was called as Sathyanarayanan @ Perumal Neelakanda Ganapathy Iyer (in short Pe.Nee.Ganapathy Iyer) and he was living with his adopted father, Perumal Iyer. The said Perumal Iyer and his brother Seetharama Iyer had entered into partition on 05.07.1916 and the same was registered on 08.07.1916. In the said partition, the Perumal Iyer for himself and as guardian for his minor son, namely, Sathyanarayanan @ Perumal Neelakanda Ganapathy Iyer (in short st Pe.Nee.Ganapathy Iyer) as 1 party and Seetharama Iyer for himself and as nd guardian for his minor son Ganapathy Iyer as 2 party had executed the partition deed. On the same date i.e. 05.07.1916, the Perumal Iyer had executed a Will in favour of his adopted son and the same was registered on 08.07.1916. Hence, the properties stands in the name of Perumal Iyer in the said partition deed was bequeathed through the Will to the said adopted son Pe.Nee.Ganapathy Iyer. In the said partition deed, dated 05.07.1916, the suit property was shown as item 8, wherein it is stated on as east west 58½ feet in that approximately ¾ feet east west on the western side shown as pathway for the usage of Udipi Sathram. Based on the partition deed, the parties were enjoying the properties. In Item No.8, out of 4 shares, leaving out one share, from the balance 3 share the said Perumal Iyer got 1½ shares. The said undivided share was in the enjoyment of both the Perumal Iyer and his adopted son. Based on the said partition deed, the said Perumal Iyer along with adopted son was residing in Door No.10/10 and thereafter, died after 10 years of partition. After his demise, based on the Will, the adopted son got the property along with the suit property and he was enjoying the properties. Since the said Perumal Iyer was given only undivided share, hence the said Sathyanarayan @ Pe.Nee.Ganapathy Iyer along with other owners, namely, Ganapathy Iyer, son Seetharama Iyer and Sankara Sasthri son of Kodilinga Dhanashkodi Sasthiri had divided the properties earmarked the portion of the parties and had executed partition deed, dated 18.12.1945. Door No.10/10 along with the western portion and the property on the western side which shown in the B Schedule of the deed st was allotted to the 1 plaintiff Ramalingam's father, namely, Pe.Nee.Ganapathy Iyer and thereafter he was in possession and the enjoyment until his demise on 06.01.1984. The Plaintiff is the son of said Pe.Nee.Ganapathi Iyer who was residing along with his mother and the defendants 4 to 9 are the daughters and they are entitled to the properties. The said Pe.Nee.Ganapathy Iyer had given his daughters in marriage before his death itself and all the daughters are living separately along with their husbands. The said Pe.Nee.Ganapathy Iyer was in possession and enjoyment of the pro

Click Here to Read the rest of this document