Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

679. They were correlated to Survey No.32/1. Perumal Naidu had one daughter viz., Alamelu Ammal and two sons namely Lingaiah Naidu and Ramachandra Naidu. While so, under Ext.A-7 sale deed dated 27.05.1919, Perumal Naidu and his two sons divided the properties. In the said partition, Perumal Naidu was allotted 13 cents in Paimash No.680 and his two sons too were allotted a like share each. In the context of the present case, it is relevant to indicate that Ramachandra Naidu was allotted 3 cents in Paimash No.679.

3. In the written statement, the defendants admitted that the Will in favour of Alamelu Ammal, but proceeded to contend that they are not disturbing plaintiff's possession over the property covered by Ext.A2. On the other hand, they would contend that the suit property is a part of Paimash No.679, in which, their father Ramachandra Naidu was alloted 3 cents under Ext.A7, partition deed dated 27.05.1919. They also pleaded that on 17.10.1982, a panchayat was held, in which both Alamelu Ammal and Ramachandra Naidu participated and they agreed to divide the property in Paimash No.680. The document evidencing the said panchayat was marked as Ext.B1.

4. The dispute went for trial and the parties have adduced oral and documentary evidence. Analysing and appreciating the evidence before it, the trial Court has held that D.W.1 in his evidence had deposed that north of 3 cents obtained by Ramachandra Naidu under Ext.A7, partition deed, there lies a portion of land and this belonged to Perumal Naidu. Since Perumal Naidu is the allottee of the eastern 13 cents in Paimash No.680, there cannot be any land belonging to Ramachandra Naidu, between the plot allotted to him in http://www.judis.nic.in Paimash No.679 and 680. This was confirmed by the first appellate Court as well. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before this Court.

6.1 The learned counsel for the appellants argued that there is a huge variation in the description of the property, in that, in Ext.A2, the southern boundary of 13 cents plot allotted to Alamelu Ammal was shown to be a street. However, the 'B' schedule property over which the plaintiff now claims right is situated to the south of the street. Nowhere in any of the documents namely Ext.A7 or Ext.A2, was it indicated that Paimash No.680 is divided into two blocks, one to the north of the street and another to the south of the street. Even in the plaint, no valid explanation is given in constructing this boundary discrepancy nor the plaintiff has chosen to explain the same in his evidence. The plaintiff's case is built on his unilateral belief that the suit property is in Paimash No.680. However, inasmuch as the boundary description does not reconcile, it is necessary for the plaintiff to seek a decree for declaring his title to the property to the south of the street. http://www.judis.nic.in 6.2 This apart, argued the learned counsel, that the defendants have produced Ext.B1, and it evidences as to how Alamelu Ammal and Ramachandra Naidu had divided the property in Paimash No.680. There is just no reference to the alleged cow-shed anywhere in the said document, and for all it matters, under Ext.B1, the shares allotted to Ramachandra Naidu and Alamelu Ammal had been shown to have been divided with specific boundaries and side measurements and this cannot be ignored.