Advocates:
['M/S T L THIRUMALAISAMY', '', 'K BABU KUMAR', 'A ANTONY MARY CATHERINE', 'M/S N MANOKARAN FORCAVEATOR', '', 'R RENUKADEVI']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03.01.2019

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA

S.A.No.527 of 2018

&

C.M.P.No.14586 of 2018

Balu

... Appellant/Defendant

Vs

Rajakamalanathan

... Respondent/Plaintif

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code

of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated

01.02.2018 made in A.S.No.30 of 2013 on the file of the

Principal District Court, Namakkal in partly confirming the

Judgment and Decree dated 10.04.2013 made in O.S.No.390 of

2008 on the file of Subordinate Court, Tiruchengode.

For Appellant

:

Mr.T.Thirumalaisamy

For Respondent

: Mr.N.Manokaran

(Caveator)

JUDGMENT

The above Second Appeal arises against the Judgment

and Decree of the Principal District Judge, Namakkal in

A.S.No.30 of 2013 in and by which the learned District

Judge has partly dismissed the appeal filed by the

appellant/defendant challenging the Judgment and Decree in

O.S.No.390 of 2008 on the file of the Subordinate Court,

Tiruchengode. The parties are arrayed in the same ranking

as in the suit.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

The facts in brief are as follows:

2.The plaintiff had filed the suit O.S.No.390 of 2008

on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tiruchengode seeking

a declaration that the defendant had no right in the suit

property and for a permanent injunction restraining the

defendant from encumbering the suit property as well as

disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

suit property. The case of the plaintiff is that the

property in question is the premises in Survey No.191/3

measuring an extent of 6.98 acres situated in

Kokarayanpettai Village, Tiruchengodu Taluk.

3.Marayee Ammal had purchased the western half

measuring an extent of 3.49 acres under the sale deed dated

21.02.1941 and the eastern half measuring 3.49 acres was

purchased by her son Nachimuthu on 22.09.1957. The

plaintiff would contend that on the death of her son

Nachimuthu her son's wife Saraswathy and daughters

Muruganandhi and Nithiya had sold their half share to the

plaintiff under a sale deed dated 21.04.1993 for a sum of

Rs.1,00,000/-. Marayee Ammal had also sold her half share

to the plaintiff under the sale deed dated 19.04.1993.

Therefore by reason of these two sale deeds the plaintiff

had become the owner of the entire extent of 6.98 acres in

S.No.191/3 and he had also mutated the revenue records in

his name and has been cultivating Sugar cane in the said

property.

4.After having sold her share to the plaintiff

representing, herself and her daughters the said Saraswathy

sold the property to one Saravanan. Since the said

Saravanan was interfering in the plaintiff's peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the suit property the plaintiff

had filed a suit O.S.No.560 of 1996 on the file of the

District Munsif, Thiruchengode against the said Saravanan,

in which the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff.

After the death of Saravanan the said Saraswathy and her

daughters repurchased their property from the legal heirs

of the Saravanan under sale deed dated 20.02.2001 and under

sale deed 25.07.2007 they had further sold the property to

the defendant. The plaintiff would contend that the

defendant could claim no right over the suit property on

the basis of the said nominal sale deeds, therefore the

suit.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5.The suit was resisted by the defendant inter alia

contending that the plaintiff is not a owner of an extent

of 3.49 acres in the suit S.No.191/3 it was their case that

after the death of Nachimuthu his wife and daughters became

entitled to the Eastern half and they had sold the same to

the plaintiff. However, they had contended that the it was

false to say that the plaintiff had purchased the share of

Marayee Ammal on 19.04.199