IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT MUNSIF AT MADURANTAKAM.

PRESENT: SELVI. M.S. Varalakshmi, B.A., B.L.,

Thursday the 18th day of January 2018.

O.S. No. 254/2013.

Rajagopal ...Plaintiff.
..Vs..
1. Gunasekaran
* 2. Bakkiyalakshmi, ...Defendants.
( 2nd defendant impleaded as per order in I.A. No. 1659/2014 in O.S. No. 254/2013 dated
15.7/2014 and the plaint amended as per order in I.A. No. 1091/2014 dated 7.8.2014).

This Suit is coming before me for final hearing on 05.01.2018 in the presence of

Thiru.K. Ayyasamy counsel for Plaintiff and Thiru.V. Agoram counsel for Defendants and

upon hearing both the sides and upon perusal of records and having stood over for

consideration and till this date, and this court delivered the following:

Judgment

The suit has been filed by the Plaintiff to Permanent Injunction against the

Defendants restraining them, their men agents, servants, or representatives from in any way

interfering with the Plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and for

cost.

2.The brief averments in the Plaint are as follows :

The Plaintiff submit that the Plaintiff is the absolute and exclusive owners of the

schedule mentioned suit properties and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same. The
 /2/

Plaintiff has purchased the suit property by way of a registered sale deed dated 16.11.2006 and

from then onwards the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by doing all

acts of ownership. The Plaintiff vendor namely M.K.Raju purchased the suit property through a

registered Sale deed dated 29.03.1990 and he possessed and enjoyed the same and sold the

same to the Plaintiff. During the year 2007 the Plaintiff dug a well in the suit property and

obtained 5Hp Motor and Electric service connection. Patta also transferred in the name of

Plaintiff after due enquiry and measurements and Sub-division was taken place and New

Survey Number was given as S.No. 213/16 in Patta No. is 948. The Plaintiff is paying kist and

other charges to the Government regularly. The sale deed dated 29.03.1990, Sale deed infavour

of Plaintiff on 16.11.2006, Patta in the name of Plaintiff, Adangal extract to the suit Properties,

available kist receipts, Letters sent by Electricity Board, E.B. deposit receipts, are filed

herewith and the same may be read as part and parcel of this plaint.

The Plaintiff submits that the Defendant are strangers and he has no any right or interest

over the suit properties. The defendant are powerful in men and money and wih their men and

money power the defendants are making unlawful arrangements to interfere with Plaintiffs

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties for the past one week. One such

attempt was made by the defendants on 20.10.2013 and the same was successfully prevented

by the Plaintiffs with great difficulties. The defendant giving out in the village, that he will

dispossesses the Plaintiff at any time. Therefore the Plaintiffs are filing the suit against the

defendant for Permanent Injunction.

In the above suit the Plaintiff has filed injunction petition in I.A. No. 135/2013. In that

petition the Defendant filed his counter stating that he has no lands in his name and his wife
 /3/

Bakkiyalakshmi alone purchased 1 Acre 40 cents in S.No. 213/1 from Raman, and hence the

Plaintiff impleaded the Bakkiyalakshmi as 2nd defendant in the suit for proper adjudication".

3. Written Statement filed by the 1 st Defendant is as follows:

This suit is incorrect, vexatious and unsustainable both in law and on facts. This

Defendant does not admit any of the allegations setout in the Plaint, save those that are

specifically admitted herein and puts the Plaintiff to strict proof of every other allegations.

The allegation that the plaintiff is the absolute and exclusive owner of the

schedule mentioned properties and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same and further

allegation the Plaintiff purchased the suit property by way of registered sale deed dated

16.11.2008 from then the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property and doing all

acts of ownership and the further allegation the Plaintiffs vendor namely M.K.Raju purchased

the suit property through a registered sale deed dated 29.03.1990 and he possessed and enjoyed

the same and sold the same to the Plaintiff and alleged dug of a well in the suit property by the

Plaintiff during 2007 and the Plaintiff obtained 5 HP Motor and service connection and alleged

patta transfer in the name of the Plaintiff and alleged sub-division S.No.213/2016 are all not

admitted by this Defendant. The Plaintiff is put to strict proof of those allegations. There is no

cause of action to file the suit.

The Defendant submits that this Defendant has no lands in his name. The suit is

wrongly filed against this Defendant. This Defendant submits that his wife had purchased

Ac.1.50 cents in S.No.213/1 from Raman S/o. Narayanan by way of registered sale deed dated

20.05.2004 since then she is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Her vendor Raman had

purchased the said property by way of registered sale deed dated 02.09.1991. In the sale deed it
 /4/

has been clearly mentioned there is 20 feet Private Road passage with perpetual right to the

West of the property purchased by him. The 20 feet passage from the Road to the Property of

this Defendant's wife to an extent of 20 feet wide 670 feet length. The pathway is in existence.

On the South of the pathway one Sivakamu W/o. P.S.Sivarama Dikshidar, purchased Ac. 1.40

cents in S.No. 213/1 which is east to the property of this Defendant's wife. The 20'feet pathway

is mentioned in the sale deed of Sivakamu. Likewise the P.S.Sivarama Dishidar purchased

Ac.1.40 cents in S.No.213/1 on the North by 20 feet common Road and East by Sivakamu land.

In that sale deed also the 20 feet pathway from the Road to the length of 670 feet shown. For

the land purchased by the wife of this Defendant from Raman under the registered sale deed

dated 20.05.2004 to be reached only through the pathway mentioned in those sale deeds. The

Common vendor was Zamin, Who had also given a rough sketch which will clearly shows the

20 feet Road from the road to the land of this Defendant Backiyalakshmi. The land purchased

by her from Raman to be reached only through the pathway mentioned in those sale deeds. The

property of the Plaintiff situate on the North of the Common Road. The Plaintiff failed to state

about the common Road in his plaint schedule of property. With the view to grab the common

Road, to be utilized by P.V.Sivaraman, Sivakamu and this Defendant's wife, the suit had been

vexatiously filed. The Plaintiff concealed the material facts and comeforward with this

vexatious suit. The Plaintiff has no locusstandi to file the suit against this Defendant. He has

not filed the suit against proper parties. The suit is misconceived one. Without verifying the

records and without adding proper persons, the suit is filed vexatiously against this Defendant.

The suit is highly malicious. The survey also been conducted and existence of the pathway

found out by going through the documents. The plaintiff has not locustandi to file the suit. The
 /5/

alleged threat by this Defendant i specifically denied. This Defendants wife is enjoying the

property purchased by her through the 20 feet Road. There is no cause of action to file the suit.

The suit is not properly filed.

There is absolutely no merit in the present suit. Hence, it is prayed that this Hon'ble

Court may be pleased to order to decree the suit as prayed for with cost.

4. Written Statement filed by the 2 st Defendant is as follows:

This suit is incorrect, vexatious and unsustainable both in law and on facts. This

Defendant does not admit any of the allegations setout in the Plaint, save those that are

specifically admitted herein and puts the Plaintiff to strict proof of every other allegations.

The allegation that the plaintiff is the absolute and exclusive owner of the

schedule mentioned properties and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same and further

allegation the Plaintiff purchased the suit property by way of registered sale deed dated

16.11.2008 from then the Plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property and doing all

acts of ownership and the further allegation the Plaintiffs vendor namely M.K.Raju purchased

the suit property through a registered sale deed dated 29.03.1990 and he possessed and enjoyed

the same and sold the same to the Plaintiff and alleged dug of a well in the suit property by the

Plaintiff during 2007 and the Plaintiff obtained 5 HP Motor and service connection and alleged

patta transfer in the name of the Plaintiff and alleged sub-division S.No.213/2016 are all

specifically denied by this Hon'ble Court and not admitted by this Defendant. The Plaintiff is

put to strict proof of those allegations. There is no cause of action to file the suit.

The Defendant submits that this Defendant purchased Ac.1.50 cents in

S.No.213/1 from Raman S/o. Narayanan by way of registered sale deed dated 20.05.2004 since
 /6/

then she is in possession and enjoyment of the same. Her vendor Raman had purchased thge

said property by way of registered sale deed dated 02.09.1991. In the sale deed it has been

clearly mentioned there is 20 feet Private Road passage with perpetual right to the West of the

property purchased by him. The 20 feet passage from the Road to the Property of this

Defendant's wife to an extent of 20 feet wide 670 feet length. The pathway is in existence. On

the South of the pathway one Sivakamu W/o. P.S.Sivarama Dikshidar, purchased Ac. 1.40 cents

in S.No. 213/1 which is east to the property of this Defendant's wife. The 20'feet pathway is

mentioned in the sale deed of Sivakamu. Likewise the P.S.Sivarama Dishidar purchased

Ac.1.40 cents in S.No.213/1 on the North by 20 feet common Road and East by Sivakamu land.

In that sale deed also the 20 feet pathway from the Road to the length of 670 feet shown. For

the land purchased by the wife of this Defendant from Raman under the registered sale deed

dated 20.05.2004 to be reached only through the pathway mentioned in those sale deeds. The

Common vendor was Zamin, who had also given a rough sketch which will clearly shows the

20 feet Road from the road to the land of this Defendant Backiyalakshmi. The land purchased

by her from Raman to be reached only through the pathway mentioned in those sale deeds. The

property of the Plaintiff situate on the North of the Common Road. The Plaintiff failed to state

about the common Road in his plaint schedule of property. With the view to grab the common

Road, to be utilized by P.V.Sivaraman, Sivakamu and this Defendant's wife, the suit had been

vexatiously filed. The Plaintiff concealed the material facts and comeforward with this

vexatious suit. The Plaintiff has no locusstandi to file the suit against this Defendant. Without

verifying the records and without adding proper persons, the suit is filed vexatiously against

this Defendant. The suit is highly malicious. The survey also been conducted and existence of
 /7/

the pathway found out by going through the documents. The plaintiff has not locustandi to file

the suit. The alleged threat by this Defendant specifically denied. This Defendant is enjoying

the property purchased by he through the 20 feet Road. There is no cause of action to file the

suit. The suit is not properly filed. There is absolutely no merit in the present suit. Hence, it is

prayed to order to decree the suit as prayed for with cost.

5. On the side of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is examined as PW1, and Exhibit A- 1 to A-8

were marked, on the side of the Defendant, the Defendant is examined as DW1, and

another witness is examined as DW-2 , and Exhibit B-1 to B-5 were marked.

6. The Plaintiff in his plaint and his evidence had relied the following documents namely,

The Original sale deed bearing document No. 3373/2006 dated 16.11.2006 is marked as

Exhibit A-1. The Sale deed in the name of Plaintiff's vendor M.K. Raju bearing document

No. 188/1990 dated 29.03.1990 is marked as Ex.A-2. The Computer patta bearing patta No.

948 in the name of Plaintiff dated 15.10.2013 is marked as Ex.A-3. The kist receipt in 2

Nos .dated 21.10.2013 and 27.01.2009 is marked as Ex. A-4. The letter sent by TNEB to the

Plaintiff in 2 Nos dated 24.01.2008 and 21.05.2007 is marked as Ex.A-5. The Electricity

bills in 2 Nos. in the name of Plaintiff dated 23.02.2008 and 28.05.2007 is marked as

Ex.A6. The certified copy of the sale deed bearing document No. 2041 dated 17.04.2009 is

marked as Ex.A-7. The FMB Sketch is marked as Ex.A-8.

The Defendant in his Written statement and his evidence had relied the following

documents namely, The certified copy of the Sale deed executed infavour of Sivakamu by

B.Nanda Alagesan bearing document No. 647 dated 02.09.1991 is marked as Ex.B-1. The

certified copy of the Sale deed executed infavour of Sivarama Dekshider by B.Nanda
 /8/

Azhaganan bearing document No. 648 dated 02.09.1991 is marked as Ex.B-2. The certified

copy of the Sale deed executed infavour of Nanda Alagesan by V. Raman bearing document

No. 649 dated 02.09.1991 is marked as Ex. B-3.The certified copy of the Sale deed executed

infavour of Backiyalakshmi Raman bearing document No. 838 dated 20.05.2004 is marked

as Ex.B-4. The Computer patta bearing patta No. 928 dated 24.11.2016 is marked as Ex.B-4.

7. This Court framed the following Issues:

1. Whether the Plaintiff is in Possession and enjoyment of the suit Property?

2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction?

3. To what other relief is entitled for Plaintiff?

At this stage, it is pertinent to answer

Issue No. 1. Whether the Plaintiff is in Possession and enjoyment of the suit Property?

The Plaintiff herein had stated that he is in possession and enjoyment of the suit

mentioned property, as the same is purchased by him by way of a registered sale deed dated

16.11.2006. The said document is marked as Exhibit A-1. On perusal of Exhibit A-1 the

Plaintiff herein had purchased the suit S. No. 213/1 to its new S. No. 213/1A/1A to the extent

of 4 acres from one M.K. Raju for valid sale consideration. The Plaintiff further stated from

the date of purchase he is in absolute possession and enjoyment by doing all acts of ownership

in the suit property. The Plaintiff vendor M.K.Raju had purchased the suit property through a

registered sale deed dated 29.03.1990. The said document is marked as Exhibit A-2. On

perusal of Exhibit A-2, the Power agent of Nanda Azhaganan is Balu Azhaganan. The said

Balu Azhaganan had sold his principals property to the Plaintiff vendor Mr.M.K.Raju for valid

sale consideration i.e. the suit mentioned schedule of property bearing S. No. 213/1 part and
 /9/

the extent is stated as 4 acres. The boundaries in Exhibit A-2, for the suit mentioned property

is as follows "North and east by 26 feet road, south by land belonging to Nanda Azhaganan

and West by Road in S. No. 211. The Plaintiff herein had stated that during the year 2007, the

Plaintiff dug a well in the suit property for which he obtained the 5 HP Motor and Electricity

Service connection in his name. The Plaintiff herein had marked Exhibit A-5, the letter sent

by Executive Engineer, Acharapakkam, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board to the Plaintiff dated

24.01.2008. The Plaintiff also filed the Electricity service payment receipt dated 23.02.2008

as Exhibit A-6. The Plaintiff herein had stated that the patta for the suit Survey number

transferred in the name of Plaintiff after due enquiry and sub-division by the Revenue

Official. The said patta is marked as Exhibit A-3. On perusal of Exhibit A-3 the patta number

is mentioned as 948 and the same stands in the name of Plaintiff for the S.No. 213/16. The

Plaintiff herein had stated that he regularly paying the Kist and other charges to the

Government, thereby marked the Kist receipt as Exhibit A-4. The Plaintiff herein had stated

that the Defendant is the strangers and they had no right or interest over the suit property. In

spite of the fact, the Defendants are making unlawful arrangements to interfere with Plaintiff's

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The same was averted by the Plaintiff

with great difficulties. Thereby the Plaintiff herein had filed the present suit for declaration of

his title.

The Defendant herein had filed the Written Statement denying the allegations made by

the Plaintiff in his plaint. The Defendant herein had stated that the 1 st Defendant had no lands

in his name. On the other hand the Defendant herein had stated that his wife has purchased 1

Acre 50 cents in S.No. 213/1 from one Raman by means of Registered sale deed dated
 /10/

20.05.2004. From the date of purchase, she is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the

same. Likewise his wife's vendor had purchased the suit property by means of registered sale

deed dated 02.09.1991 and furthermore the 1 st Defendant herein had stated that the suit is bad

for non-joinder of his wife Backialakshmi as she is necessary party to decide the dispute as

she alone purchase the property. After filing the written statement by the 1 st Defendant, the

Plaintiff herein had impleaded the 2 nd Defendant Backialakshmi as per order in I.A.No.

1659/2014 dated 15.07.2014. The 2nd Defendant herein had filed the written Statement stating

the fact that she purchased the 1 acre 50 cents in S.No. 213/1 from one Raman by means of a

registered sale deed dated 20.05.2004. The said document is marked as Exhibit B4. On

perusal of Exhibit B-4 the property has been purchased by the 2 nd Defendant from the power

agent of Mr. Raman namely Sundaram S/o Narayanan. In which the survey number is

mentioned as 213/1 and the extent is mentioned as 1.50 cents and its boundaries runs as

follows " rptfhkp epyj;Jf;F fpHf;F. uhkrhkp. bt';flhryk;. ntiyah ,th;fs;

epyj;Jf;F bjw;F. KDrhkp epyj;Jf;F nkw;F. g{e;njhl;lj;jpw;F tlf;F ,jd; kj;jpapy;

nkw;go epyk;."

The Defendant further stated his vendor Mr.Raman had purchased the suit

property by means of a registered sale deed dated 02.09.1991 for valid sale consideration and

the said document is marked as Exhibit B-3. On perusal of Exhibit B-3, the 2 nd Defendant's

vendor Mr.Raman had purchased the property from the power agent of Nanda Azhaganan that

is from Bala Azhaganan. On further perusal of Exhibit B-3, the schedule of property is stated

as follows " North by land belonging to Mr. Velaiyan and Mr.A.Venkatachalam and south by
 /11/

land belonging to Suresh Kumar Rao East by land belonging to Munusamy and West by land

belonging to sold property to Mr.P.S.Sivakamu sold by Mr. Nanda Azhaganan. The 2 nd

Defendant herein had stated that in the above sale deed it is clearly mentioned about 20 feet

private road passage with perpetual right to the west of the property purchased by her vendor.

The 20 feet passage from the road to the property to this 2 nd Defendant is to an extent of 20

feet width and 670 feet length. The pathway is still in existence.

The 2nd Defendant further stated that the said pathway is also mentioned in the

sale deed of one Sivakamu who has purchased one acre and 40 cents in S.No. 213/1 from Balu

Azhaganan and he same is situated on the east to the property of this 2 nd Defendant. The

said sale deed is marked as Exhibit B-1. On the very same date one Sivarama Dishidar

purchased 1 Acre 40 cents in S.No. 213/1 from Balu Azhaganan with the following

boundaries, North by common Road (passage) 20 feet wide running West to East to

Mr.V.Raman's land, South by land belonging to Mr.Suresh Kumar Rao, East by land of

Sivakamu and West by High way Road in S.No. 211. The said document is marked as

Exhibit B-2. In which also the existence of 20 feet pathway running to the length of 670 feet is

mentioned. The 2nd Defendant herein had stated that this Defendant along with one Sivakamu

and Sivarama Dishidar purchased the property from Bala Azhaganan, the Power agent of

Nanda Azhaganan. Thereby it is construed that they are having the common vendor. The 2 nd

Defendant further stated for the property purchased by the 2 nd Defendant from his vendor

Raman to be reached only through the pathway mentioned in those sale deeds and the Plaintiff

herein failed to state about the common road in his Plaint schedule in order to grab the

common road which was utilized by Sivakamu and the 2nd Defendant.
 /12/

The 2nd Defendant further stated that the Plaintiff had no locustandi to file the suit

against the Defendant and the same was filed without verifying the records. Thereby the suit

filed by the Plaintiff is liable to be dismissed. The Plaintiff herein had raised the objection in

marking Exhibit B-1, B-2 and Exhibit B-3 stating that the existence of common road was not

awared by the Plaintiff, while he purchased the property from his vendor and further stated

there is another pathway available for the 2 nd Defendant to reach his property. The Plaintiff

herein had admitted the fact, that he purchased the property from one M.K.Raju. The said

M.K. Raju also purchase the property from Nanda Azhaganan which is marked as Exhibit A-2.

On perusal of Exhibit A-2 it is found that the Plaintiff vendor also purchased the property from

the Power agent of Nanda Azhaganan through Mr. Bala Azhaganan. The Plaintiff has filed the

suit without mentioning the boundaries to the property that he claims his title. The Plaintiff

stated that on the southern side of the suit mentioned property, the land belongs to one

Borelinga situated whereas the Defendant herein had stated that according to the Plaintiff's own

document, Exhibit A-2 the Southern side is the land belonging to the vendor. The Plaintiff

herein had marked Exhibit A-7, the sale deed dated 17.04.2009 by one Borelinga infavour of

the 2nd Defendant. On perusal of Exhibit A-7 in S.No. 213/1 to the extent of 1 Acre has been

purchased by the 2nd Defendant from one Borelinga in which the boundaries is stated as

follows " ghf;fpayl;Rkp epyj;jpw;F nkw;F gl;lh kz; ghl;ilf;F fpHf;F. tlf;F bjw;F

,jd; kj;jpapy; 1 Vf;fh; kl;Lk; " The Plaintiff also marked Exhibit A-8, the FMB Sketch for

the S. No. 213. By citing the Exhibit A-8, in S. No. 213/1A, 1A1 the existence of pathway is

not mentioned by the Revenue officials, and further stated that the Revenue Officials would
 /13/

mentioned about the presence of passage in the suit property if any as stated by the 2 nd

Defendant. The same shall be shown in the FMB Sketch that is Exhibit A-8. As claimed by

the Defendants there exists no common pathway, thereby the Defendants are not entitled for

the claim of the alleged pathway mentioned in the Exhibit B-1 to B-3.

On perusal of Exhibit B-1 and B-3 and also Exhibit A-2 the vendor of Exhibit B-

1 to B3 and A-2 is one and the same and the Exhibit B-1 to B-3 was executed on the very same

day that is 02.09.1991. In Exhibit B-1 to B-3, the existence of private passage is stated. The

length and its breadth is also stated. Furthermore in Exhibit B-1 to B-3, in the covenant it is

stated " that the purchaser had agreed to purchase the same for the said price, together with a

perpetual right of way along with Private Road (passage) 20 feet wide and 670 feet long in

common with the owner of the land...." In Exhibit B-1 in boundaries North by common road

passage 20 feet width running West to East V. Raman lands is stated. In Exhibit B-2, the 20

feet width road running west to east to Mr.V.Raman land is stated. In Exhibit A-3, the

purchase made by the Sivakamu from Balu Azhaganan is stated. Thereby the objection

raised by the Plaintiff has no legs to stands. Furthermore in the covenant of Exhibit B-1 to B-

3, it is that the common owners could used the common passage, at all times in common

with the owners of the land. On perusal of Exhibit B1 to B-3 the passage claimed by the

Defendant is the private common passage. It is between the Raman, Sivakamu and Sivarama

Diskhidar. Thereby the same shall not be mentioned in Exhibit A-8 the FMB Sketch. As both

the Plaintiff as well as the Defendants had purchased the land from common vendor and also

on perusal of the boundaries stated in Exhibit A-1, A-2, B-1 to B-3 the existence of passage is

found place. Furthermore the Plaintiff who come before this court for the relief of permanent
 /14/

Injunction had to prove the fact that he is in absolute possession and enjoyment of the suit

property within the boundaries. Whereas the Plaintiff herein failed to mention the boundaries

for which he sought relief of permanent injunction against the Defendant. In view of above

this court comes to the conclusion that the Plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of the

suit property absolutely and exclusively. In view of above this issue is answered against the

Plaintiff.

Issue No. 2. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled for the relief of Permanent Injunction?

As the Issue No.1 is answered against the Plaintiff. Thereby the Plaintiff is not

entitled for the relief of permanent Injunction

Issue No. 3. To what other relief is entitled for Plaintiff?

No other relief is entitled for Plaintiff.

8. In the result, suit is dismissed with costs.

9. Dictated to the Stenographer and transcribed by her and corrected and pronounced by

me in open court on this the 18th day of January 2018.

District Munsif,
Madurantakam.
Plaintiff Side Witness :

PW1- Rajagopal

Plaintiff side documents:

Ex.A1 - The Original sale deed bearing document No. 3373/2006 dated 16.11.2006

Ex.A2- The Sale deed in the name of Plaintiff's vendor M.K. Raju bearing document No.
188/1990 dated 29.03.1990

Ex.A3- The Computer patta bearing patta No. 948 in the name of Plaintiff dated
15.10.2013
 /15/

Ex.A4- The kist receipt in 2 Nos .dated 21.10.2013 and 27.01.2009

Ex.A5- The letter sent by TNEB to the Plaintiff in 2 Nos dated 24.01.2008
and 21.05.2007

Ex.A6- The Electricity bills in 2 Nos. in the name of Plaintiff dated 23.02.2008
and 28.05.2007

Ex.A7- The certified copy of the sale deed bearing document No. 2041 dated 17.04.2009

Ex.A8- The FMB Sketch

Defendants side witness:

DW1- Bakkiyalakshmi

DW2- Elumalai

Defendants side documents:

Ex.B-1- The certified copy of the Sale deed executed infavour of Sivakamu by B.Nanda
Alagesan bearing document No. 647 dated 02.09.1991.

Ex.B-2- The certified copy of the Sale deed executed infavour of Sivarama Dekshider by
B.Nanda Alagesan bearing document No. 648 dated 02.09.1991.

Ex.B-3- The certified copy of the Sale deed executed infavour of Nanda Alagesan
by V. Raman bearing document No. 649 dated 02.09.1991.

Ex.B-4- The certified copy of the Sale deed executed infavour of Backiyalakshmi Raman
bearing document No. 838 dated 20.05.2004.

Ex.B-5- The Computer patta bearing patta No. 928 dated 24.11.2016

District Munsif,
Madurantakam.
Draft/Fair/Judgment

O.S. No. 254/2013.

D.D.: 18.01.2018.

DMC, MKM.