The appellate court misdirected its assessment, failing to recognize that property ownership and identity were sufficiently proven by prior deeds and tax records.

JUDGMENT

This Second Appeal has been preferred as against the decree and Judgment passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore in Appeal Suit in A.S.No.46 of 2014 dated 12.03.2015. The appellant herein, being the plaintiff, has filed the suit in O.S.No.85 of 2011 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Katpadi for the relief of Declaration and Recovery of Possession and the same was decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Aggrieved by the said Decree and Judgment, the defendants have preferred the appeal before the learned Subordinate Judge, Vellore in A.S.No.46 of 2014. The First Appellate Court reversed the Decree and Judgment passed by the trial court and dismissed the suit. Challenging the said Decree and Judgment, the present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties in this Second Appeal are referred as plaintiff and defendants as referred before the trial court.

3. The brief averments of the plaint are as follows:-

(i) The suit property originally belonged to the father of the plaintiff, viz., Kesava Achari and he purchased the suit property on 02.04.1945 from one Chinnapa Gounder for joint family, thereafter, on 01.04.1967, the plaintiff’s father and his brother, Kannappa Achari partitioned the properties through partition deed and the suit property was allotted to the share of the plaintiff’s father. The plaintiff’s father, Kesava Achari enjoyed the property as the owner till his death and the plaintiff’s father had two sons, the plaintiff and one Janarthanam. Further, the father of the plaintiff died intestate on 07.12.1982. After the demise of plaintiff’s father, the another son, viz., Janarthanam was missing for long time and his whereabouts were not known to the plaintiff and thereby he was not added as party to the suit. Further, patta also granted in the name of the plaintiff for the suit property and she is also paying house tax to the Panchayat.

(ii) Further, the 2^nd defendant is the cousin sister to the plaintiff and the 1^st defendant is the husband of the 2^nd defendant. The plaintiff is living in Neyveli with her family and since the defendants are not owning any house for their shelter, on humanitarian grounds, at the request of the defendants, the plaintiff permitted the defendants to reside in the suit property. The plaintiff’s name is Shantha and the 2^nd defendant name is Santha Kumari, therefore, taking advantage of the similarity of the name, the 2^nd defendant filed a suit in O.S.No.135 of 2010 for permanent injunction against the plaintiff alleging that she is enjoying the property for the past 25 years and thereby got title over the property by way of adverse possession. In fact, the defendants are in permissive possession and now the defendants are denying the title of the property and also refused to vacate the premises and thereby filed the suit.

4. The brief averments of the Written Statement filed by the defendants are as follows:-

(i) The suit is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. The plaintiff has to prove all the averments in the plaint, except those that are specifically admitted by the defendants. The allegation that the suit property originally belonged to one Kesava Achari, who is the father of the plaintiff and thereafter, the plaintiff’s father and his brother, Kannappa Achari, partitioned joint family property and the said property was allotted to the plaintiff’s father, are all denied. In fact, the suit property is natham poramboke land and the 2^nd defendant has been in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property for the past 25 years. After taking possession of the property, the 2^nd defendant constructed a thatch