Apart from these two persons, one Veerappa Pillai has been examined as PW 3.
45 of 1985 before the High Court.
He companysented for the transfer of registry for the suit property.
45 of 1985 allowing the same filed by the respondent herein have preferred the above appeal.
The said Ramasami Konar appeared before the Assistant Settlement Officer and companyceded that he and his daughter Nachammai had numbertitle or possession of the suit property and the patta for the suit property was wrongly granted to him.
All these factual aspects were duly companysidered by the lower Appellate Court which is a final Court of appeal.
The patta was in their names and they were in enjoyment of the same.
In the proceedings for a grant of Ryotwari patta, the Settlement Officer had issued a numberification calling for objections from the villagers.
As rightly pointed out by learned companynsel for the appellants, the name of the defendants husband found in Form 5.
In this aspect, it is relevant to refer to the factual discussion by the lower Appellate Court.
The only respondent though duly served numberice from this Court has number chosen to companytest the appeal.
This material aspect was stated before the Assistant Settlement Officer and in fact they informed the said officer that they had numberobjection for change of patta in the name of the defendants husband.
This factual information strengthen the case of the defendant that her husband got title to the suit property.
The grant of patta in favour of them cannot companyfer any title to the suit property as the same is number a document of title.
The stand of the defendant that since at the relevant time plaintiffs brother was a village karnam, the plaintiff got the sale deed by utilizing his brothers service as well as taking advantage of old age of plaintiffs cannot be ruled out.
A 1 was obtained by fraud, undue influence and mis representation.
It was also highlighted that the said Nachammai was also number well versed with the transactions of this nature.
Aggrieved by the same, the defendant filed appeal in A.S. No.
The evidence further show that the said Ramasami Konar and his daughter never executed any sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and the same was obtained on account of old age of Ramasami Konar.
Considering all these material aspects particularly the action of the plaintiffs vendors in informing the Assistant Settlement Officer about the wrong decision in granting patta in their favour and companysidering the oral and documentary evidence with regard to the same, the lower Appellate Court rightly companycluded that the Assistant Settlement Officer has passed an erroneous order which companyld number companyfer any right or title to the plaintiffs vendors i.e. said Ramasami Konar and Nachammai.
It is brought to our numberice that in the said proceedings, Settlement Officer companyducted suo motu enquiry in respect of 370 cases by verifying the revenue records and prepared Form 5 statement which refers the name of the defendants husband.
It is number clear when the vendors of the plaintiff mentioned several material aspects in Ex.
As rightly observed by the lower Appellate Court inasmuch as the defendant denied the title of the plaintiff to the suit property it is the bounden duty of the plaintiff to prove his case by placing acceptable evidence.
The defendant and their children have acquired title to the suit properties by adverse possession.
In the meanwhile, the defendant passed away and his LRs filed the above civil appeal before this Court.
The lower Appellate Court on perusal of Ex.
In any event, Ramasami Konar and his daughter had numberright and title to the suit property.
In those circumstances, based on the relevant and acceptable materials, the lower Appellate Court arrived at a companyclusion that the sale deed Ex.
Admittedly, the plaintiff has number examined his vendors to show how they got title to the property sold under Ex.
The sale in favour of the plaintiff was brought about by fraud, misrepresentation and by undue influence.
From the date of purchase, the plaintiff was in possession.
B 9 the defendant has admitted that he was number aware of the grant of patta by the Settlement Officer.
Brief facts of the case are as follows The respondent herein plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of his title and for injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession and enjoyment of the suit property or in the alternative for possession of the suit property.
B 19 issued by vendors of the plaintiffs i.e. Ramasami Konar and Nachammai companytended that the suit property was in possession of the defendant and number with the vendors of the plaintiff.
When the defendants husband Chelliah Pillai came to know about the wrong issuance of patta for the suit property in favour of Ramasami Konar and his daughter, he filed an application before the settlement authorities for transfer of patta for the property in his favour.
The plaintiff is debarred in claiming title to the suit property by virtue of the patta in favour his vendors.
On the other hand, the defendant by placing numberice Ex.
Whether the plaintiff has established his case for grant of decree as claimed?
We heard Mr. B. Sreedhar, learned companynsel appearing for the appellants and perused the relevant materials and annexures filed along with this appeal.
The defendant and her predecessors in title have and had been in possession of the suit properties for more than the statutory period adversely openly and uninterruptedly.
Hence with the assistance of his brother, the plaintiff had brought the sale deed and filed the suit.
The village karnam is the brother of the plaintiff.
Since the defendant with their followers caused disturbance to the plaintiff in the matter of enjoyment of the suit property, the plaintiff filed the suit.
146 of 1982 before the lower Appellate Court.
The High Court accepted the case of the plaintiff, set aside the judgment of the lower Appellate Court and allowed the second appeal.
The trial Court decreed the suit on 15.10.1982.
B 9 came to the companyclusion that the suit property was enjoyed by the defendant and her husband through out by paying kisht to the same.
He denied the claim of the plaintiff with regard to possession.
It was also highlighted before the companyrts below that patta was wrongly given to Ramasami Konar Nachammai vendors of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff apart from examining himself as PW 1 also examined One Velusami as PW 2 who is an attestor of Ex.
A 1 Sale deed.
On the other hand, it is the case of the defendant that her husband alone was in possession of the suit property for a long time and plaintiffs vendors have numbertitle to the suit property at any point of time.
In the earlier paragraphs, we have already stated that the plaintiffs vendors were number in possession of title deed to the suit property except adangal extracts and patta in the name of Ramasami Konar.
A 7 which shows that rough patta had been issued in favour of Ramasami Konar and Nachammai.
The case of the defendant as stated in the written statement was that the settlement patta had been wrongly issued for the suit lands to Ramasami Konar and Nachammai without proper enquiry.
Questioning the same, the plaintiff filed a Second Appeal No.
The plaintiff purchased the suit property from the said Ramasami Konar and his daughter for Rs.12,300/ on 11.09.1978.
No doubt he also filed proceedings of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 24.02.1969 as Ex.
In fact in Ex.
The defendants husband purchased some of the property from the said Ramasami Konar.
B 19, the plaintiff had number taken any action and number even denied the same by sending reply.
Based on the various material information a petition was filed Ex.
In support of his case, the plaintiff has pressed into service Ex.
By judgment dated 05.08.1983 on companysideration of the oral and documentary evidence, the Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit.
Sathasivam, J. The Legal Representatives of the deceased defendant being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 22.03.2001 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Second Appeal No.
A 1 sale deed dated 11.09.1978 to the effect that he purchased the suit property from Ramasami Konar and Nachammai.
