Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: maruthuvar in Bakthavatchalam vs Valakkai Maruthuvar on 24 November, 2016Matching Fragments
4.The trial court framed the following issues:
1) Whether the plaintiff have title over the property ?
2) Whether the property belongs to Maruthuvar community ?
3) Whether the plaintiffs have perfected the title by adverse possession ?
4) Whether the defendants have perfected the title by adverse possession ?
5) Whether the defendants have trespassed into the suit property ?
6) What other relief ?
5.Before the trial Court, 4 witnesses on the side of the plaintiff and 2 witnesses on the side of defendants were examined. 27 exhibits on behalf of the plaintiff and 11 exhibits on behalf of the defendants were marked. From the documentary evidence and the occular evidence , the trial Court found that, though, it is not proved that Mr.Abdullah was inducted into the property as a Tentant, as per Ex B-1, the plaintiff who was examined as PW-1 has admitted that when his mother purchased the suit property, Mr.Abdullah and his heirs were not in possession of the suit property. The trial Ccourt referring to Ex B-4 dated 27.02.1941 - the settlement deed, executed by one Mr.Annamalai in favour of Kasi pillaiyar Temple, managed by the the defendants community, had held that, it is clear from this document that the suit property was mortgaged by Mr.Annamalai to one Mr.Chinnasami Mudaliar on 01/03/1935. It was not redeemed till the execution of Ex B-4. The rental receipt executed by Mr.Abdullah in favour of Mr.Chinnasami which is marked as Ex B-6 dated 11.10.1950 proves the fact that the suit property under mortgage with Mr.Chinnasami Mudaliar was leased to Mr.Abdullah by the mortgagee Mr.Chinnasami Mudaliar. Thus, Mr.Abdullah was a only permissive occupant under Mr.Chinnasami Mudaliar.