Page 1 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 1/39
IN THE COURT OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, TINDIVANAM
PRESENT: Thiru.T.H.MOHAMMED FAROOQ, M.A.,M.L.,
II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (FAC), TINDIVANAM
(I Additional District Judge, Tindivanam)
Friday the 25th day of October 2024.
O.S.No.346/2022
(CNR No.TNVPOD0000622022)
Aurovile Foundation, Aurovile, rep.by the
Officer on Special duty, Aurovile .. Plaintiff
--Vs--
1. Thiru.Sridhar
2. Thiru.Prabakar
3. Thiru.Subramani .. Defendants
This suit coming before me for final hearing on 19.10.2024 in the presence of
Tr.R.Natarajan, Advocate for the Plaintiff and that of Thiru.S.Murali Advocate for
the defendants, and after hearing both sides and perusing the material records this
Court delivers the following ...
JUDGMENT
1. This suit has been filed by the plaintiff for declaration, permanent
injunction and cancellation of documents as null and void and for costs.
2. Brief averments of the plaint :
2.1. The plaintiff state that the suit properties are situate at Irumbai Village,
II ADJ/TDM
Page 3 of 39
OS.346/2022 Page 3/39
purchased by them under the sale deed.
2.3. The plaintiff state that as per the above sale deeds, the plaintiff got title
and possession of the entire extent of Ac.21.00. The above sale deeds are true, valid
and the property was purchased for adequate consideration. From the date of
purchase, plaintiff is peacefully in possession of the suit property. The patta has been
transferred in the name of plaintiff in patta No.704, based upon the purchase by the
plaintiff. The property is an agricultural land the plaintiff is paying the kist to the suit
property regularly. The plaintiff alone is having title and possession of the suit
property. Everyone in the village knew the possession of plaintiff of the suit property.
2.4. The plaintiff state that above Venkatraman, S/o.Ramasamy Naidu sold
the remaining extent of Ac.3.00 to and in favour of Sammandhamurthy,
S/o.Velayutham Pillai under document No.2512/1981, dated 17.06.1981. After selling
the suit property to the plaintiff, the vendor got no property to convey or transfer to
any person. The plaintiff came to know that in the resurvey more extent of property
was given patta in the name of the vendor, Venkatraman. Though more extent of
property finds place in the “A” Register and the patta, the entire extent comprised in
old survey No.428/- is an extent of Ac.23.40. No other property or extent is covered
under the new survey No.426/1E, the vendor, Venkatraman sold out the entire extent
of Ac.23.40 as aforesaid. No property was left out by the vendor, Venkatraman to
succeed by his heirs.
II ADJ/TDM