Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit properties are Nanja lands in old Paimash Nos. 586, 557 and 558 corresponding to new Survey Nos. 70, 85. 71/1 and 71/2 measuring in all 1.16 acres in Shrotriam Adambakkam village, that the said properties were originally purchased by the father of the plaintiffs Ponnuranga Naicker from Dharmalinga Naicker, the second defendant, that after the said Ponnuranga Naicker died, the plaintiffs moved to other places, that as absentee landlords, the plaintiffs could not cultivate the suit lands profitably, even though they were engaging some local people for doing the cultivation operations, and that taking advantage of the absence of the plaintiffs, the first defendant trespassed into the plaintiffs' lands and enclosed the same by putting up fencing. It is further mentioned in the plaint that Dharmalinga Naicker, the second defendant earlier filed a suit in O. S. No. 779 of 1975 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Poonamallee against the first defendant in respect of some portions in the same survey numbers and the same was already disposed of.

6. According to the first defendant through his written statement, the earlier suit in O. S. No. 779 of 1975 filed by the second defendant Dharmalinga Naicker for declaration of his title to the suit properties and for mandatory injunction, was dismissed and, therefore, the present plaintiffs have been set up by the said Dharmalinga Naicker to file this suit. However, it is further stated in the written statement that the first defendant has nothing to do with paimash No. 586 or paimash No. 557, that he had purchased the lands bearing paimash No. 558 measuring 0.6.0 and paimash No. 620 measuring 0.12.0 and also a port ion in paimash No. 558/1 measuring 1.45 cents from A. S. Perumal Naicker and that ever since the date of his purchase he has been in possession and enjoyment of the entire property. In para 18 of the written statement he also mentioned that the disputed properties have already been laid out into house site plots and as such, the suit has been improperly valued, as if they were Nanja lands. This written statement was filed on 28-6-1991.

18. Before going into the main core of the matter, it would be relevant to refer some factual aspects.

19. The present suit filed by the plaintiffs is for declaration of title and recovery of possession in respect of Nanja lands in Paimash Nos. 586. 557 and 558 corresponding to new Survey Nos. 70, 85, 71/1 and 71/ 2 respectively. According to the written statement filed by the first defendant, the respondent herein, in respect of the very same properties, the second defendant filed another suit in O. S. No. 779 of 1975 and the same was dismissed on 28-4-1988 and this suit has been filed by the plaintiffs, who have been set up by him.

24. Even in the written statement, it is admitted by the first defendant that the suit properties were the lands, that he had nothing to do with paimash No. 586 or paimash No. 557 but he had purchased the lands bearing paimash Nos. 558 and 620 and that those disputed properties have been laid out into house site plots and sanctions were obtained from the appropriate authorities as house sites. Though this reference about the court-fee valuation was incidentally referred to in para 18 of the written statement filed on 28-6-1991, the defendant did not make any attempt to request the Court immediately, after filing of the written statement to decide the preliminary issue with reference to the valuation of the court-fee.