Request a review
Learn more
Signature pending
Sign
Reject
View details
Review
Not Spam
Remove forever
Not Spam
Page
/
39
Loading…
{"id": "1h7JS90Z0nBaJneD1j4B3s6cFI2u7eMaM", "title": "PKS judgement.pdf", "mimeType": "application\/pdf"}

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

...
P ... f
Open
Open
Open with
Sign In
Details
Comments
General Info
Type
Dimensions
Size
Duration
Location
Modified
Created
Opened by me
Sharing
Description
Loading…
Sign in
Page 1 of 39