Possession and title through adverse possession can negate claims of oral gifts in property disputes, leading to dismissal of partition claims.

COMMON ORDER

These appeals have been preferred challenging the common judgment dated 29.06.2009 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Tiruvannamalai in A.S.Nos.17 & 18 of 2009 by confirming the judgment and decree of learned Additional District Munsif, Chengam dated 11.12.2007 in O.S.No. 519 & 348 of 2005 respectively.

2. The appellant is the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent as plaintiff in O.S.No.519/2004 and he is the plaintiff in the other suit in O.S.No.348 of 2005 filed against the respondent. The suit in O.S.No.519 of 2004 was filed by the respondent for claiming the relief of permanent injunction. The other suit filed by the appellant in O.S.No.348/2008 is for claiming partition of half share in the suit property. The suits were tried together and a common judgment has been passed by the trial Court on 11.12.2007 by decreeing the suit filed by the respondent in O.S.No.519/2004 and by dismissing the suit in O.S.No.348 of 2005 filed by the appellant. Hence the appellant had filed first appeals challenging both the judgments in A.S.Nos.17 & 18 of 2008 respectively. The first Appellate Court also confirmed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed both the first appeals through its common judgment dated 29.06.2009. Aggrieved over that these Second Appeals have been filed by the appellant.

3. The averments made in the plaint in O.S.No.519 of 2004 in brief :

The plaintiff and defendants are sister and brother. The suit properties and other properties originally belonged to their father Muruga Mudaliyar by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 06.06.1964. The said Muruga Mudaliyar had two other sons namely Subbarayan and Arumugam and both of them died intestate and unmarried. During the lifetime of Muruga Mudaliyar some 35 years ago he orally gave the suit property to the plaintiff and from then onwards the plaintiff is in exclusive possession and enjoyment over the same. Her father Muruga Mudaliyar consented to effect the change of patta in her name. Hence Patta No.672 was granted in her name in respect of the suit property and she is paying the necessary property tax as well. The plaintiffs is in uninterrupted, continuous and open possession of the suit property and title by adverse possession also.

3.1 Her father Muruga Mudaliar purchased some more properties in the names of the defendant and the defendant's wife and his sons and also settled some other property to the defendant, his wife and children by way of a registered Will dated 24.11.1998. The defendants took possession of those properties and is in enjoyment of the same. The defendant is attempting to interfere with the peaceful possession of the suit property.

4. The averments made in the written statement of the defendant in O.S.No.519 of 2004 in brief

The relationship between the parties is admitted. The father of the parties did not give any property orally to the plaintiff and the alleged consent for change of patta was also false. After the death of two unmarried sons, the defendant and the another son Arumugam along with Muruga Mudaliar entered into a registered partition on 24.07.1971 and in the said partition deed the suit properties and other properties were retained to the share of Muruga Mudliar and he was in enjoyment of the same. Except the suit property Muruga Mudaliar bequeathed all other properties under a registered Will dated 24.01.1988 to Radha Ammal and her children. The suit property was enjoyed