Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

This second appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgment and decree passed by the Principal District Judge, Thiruvannamalai in A.S.No.121 of 1999 dated 08.12.2000 reversing the judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Munsif, No.II, Thiruvannamalai in O.S.No.409 of 1987 dated 29.07.1999. The first respondent herein had filed a suit in O.S.No.409 of 1987 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, No.II, Thiruvannamalai to declare his title over the suit property and to grant a permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, etc., from in any manner interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The learned Additional District Munsif No.2, Thiruvannamalai, by the judgment dated 29.07.1999 had dismissed the said suit with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff had filed an appeal in A.S.No.121 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thiruvannamalai. He also filed an application in I.A.110 of 2010 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to receive certain documents as additional evidence. The learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvannamalai by the order and judgment dated 08.12.2000 had allowed the application in I.A.No.110 of 2000 and marked Exs.A16 to A30. Finally the learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvannamalai had allowed the said appeal with costs and set http://www.judis.nic.in aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and decreed the suit as prayed for with costs. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants 3, 6, 10 to 15 and the legal representatives of the fourth defendant have filed the present second appeal.

From and out of the income derived from the said ancestral lands, Veerasami Gounder purchased about 2.50 acres from his brother Chinnakutti Gounder. The said Veerasami Gounder became old and hence in the year 1925, his eldest son viz., Perumal Gounder became the Manager of the joint family and at that time, the defendants were minors. From and out of the income derived from the ancestral joint family property, Perumal Gounder in his capacity as manager of the said joint family purchased the suit property bearing S.No.6/3 measuring 5.97 acres in the court action sale in O.S.No.623 of 1927 on the file of the District Munsif, Thiruvannamalai for a sum of Rs.575/- for the benefit of all the members of the joint family. Therefore, the suit property was not at all self-acquired property of Perumal Gounder and he never exclusively enjoyed the suit property and asserted any exclusive title over the suit property. Further in his capacity as manager of the http://www.judis.nic.in joint family, he also purchased 1.95 acres out of 7.65 acres in S.No.45/2 for a sum of Rs.100/- under a registered sale deed dated 09.04.1935. In the very same Survey Number, the said Veerasami Gounder while he was the manager had purchased 1.95 acres from one Sarambi. Thus in S.45/2, out of the 7.65 acres, the joint family got 3.90 acres. The plea of acquisition of title by Perumal Gounder by adverse possession is false and misconceived. In or about 1940, Perumal Gounder, Mannangatti Gounder, Gopalasamy Gounder and their father, Veerasami Gounder orally partitioned all their ancestral and joint family properties including the suit property.

7.The learned Additional District Munsif, Thiruvannamalai, after considering the materials placed before him, found that the suit property was purchased by the plaintiff's father from and out of the joint family property for the benefit of the entire joint family. He further found that since the suit property is the joint family property, the plaintiff cannot claim absolute right over the suit property. Accordingly, he dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff had filed an appeal in A.S.No.121 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Thiruvannamalai. He also http://www.judis.nic.in filed an application in I.A.No.110 of 2000 to receive certain documents as Additional documentary evidence. The learned Principal District Judge, Thiruvannamala, by the order and judgment dated 08.12.2000 had allowed the said application and marked Exs. A16 to 30 and finally allowed the said appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and decreed the suit as prayed for with costs. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants 3, 6, 10 to 15 and the legal representatives of the deceased fourth defendant have filed the present second appeal.

                                                                                23.05.2019

                      Index    : Yes/No

                      Speaking Order: Yes/No

                      gv
http://www.judis.nic.in





                      To

                      1. The Principal District Judge,

                           Thiruvannamalai.



                      2. The Additional District Munsif No.II,

                           Thiruvannamalai.



                      3. The Section Officer,

                           High Court, Madras.




http://www.judis.nic.in




                               P.RAJAMANICKAM.,J

                                                gv





                                              and





                                       23.05.2019




http://www.judis.nic.in