IN THE COURT OF THE HORABLE III ADDITIONAL SUB JUDGE ,

MADURAI
O.S.No. 518 of 2019
Between :
John Phelix Fernando Plaintiff
And :
1 ) Santhanakrishnan
2 ) S.Divya. Defendants
WRITTEN STATEMENT PRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANTS FILED UNDER
ORDER VIII RULE I
1 ) Save those allegations that are hereby denied as false and incorrect and the
Plaintiff is put to hereunder all other allegations mentioned in the Plaint are all
strict proof of the same .
2 ) It is true and admitted fact that the suit properties and other adjacent
properties all belongs to one Gurusamy and the said Gurusamy had appointed
one K.R.Pandiarajan as his Power agent to manage the suit property and other
properties through a Registered General Power deed dated 08-02-1984 and the
said power agent K.R. Pandiarajan was also appointed as Power Agent of the
neighbouring land owners of the suit property called ( 1 ) Pandiammal and others
2 ) Ramuthayee ( 3 ) Lakshmana Pillai through their respective registered Power
deeds dated 22-02 1984 , 13-03-1984 , 29-05-1984 . Thus the Power agent
K.R.Pandiarajan had acted as a Power agent for all the above four land owners
whose lands are situated adjacent to each other and the total extent of the above
four land owners comes to an extent of 4 acres 51 cents .
3 ) It is submitted that the Power agent had obtained the above mentioned four
power deeds from the respective land owners with the intention to sell the same
Thus the Power agent after four land owners had orally after dividing into various
plot obtaining the Power deeds froth divided the entire total extent to several
plots and without the approval of the lay outs for the said plots the Power agent
different persons without approval of the lay outs for the had sold some plots to
sever Persons numbering about 30 vendor one A.N.Palaniappan Son of Annamalai
Chettiar same . At this juncture it is wory to mention that defendants had
purchased the suit property along with two other registered Sale deed dated 13-
08-1984 a properties through the sale deed as a Power agent of the original
owner called from the Power Agent called R.Pandiarajan who executed
Murugesan . The said defendants vendor A.N.Palaniappan above Sale deed dated
13-08-1984 had through the from the Power agent K.R.Pandirajan and the 3rd
items of the purchased 3 items of the property including the suit property
property comprised in the Sale deed dated 13-08-1984 is the suit item of the
property . It is pertinent to note that at the time of the sale deed dated 13-08-
1984 the Power Agent K.R.Pandiarajan the seller of the property had not obtained
the lay out plan approval from the concerned Paravai panchayat union authorities
for the plots sold to the defendants vendor A.N.Palaniappan and the plots
mentioned in the Sale deed dated 13-08-1984 are not approved plots and the
approval for the entire divided plots for the total extent of 4 acres and 51 cents
were obtained from the concerned Paravai Panchayat Union by the Power Agent
K.R. Pandiayan in the year 1985 through approved lay out number 232/7/85 ,
232/9/95 , 242/1/85 , 242/2/85 , 242/3/95 , 242/85 , 267/4/85 . According to the
above approved lay outs new Plot No. were assigned to the properties already
purchased by person's numbering about 30 persons before lay out approval Thus
all the 30 persons who purchased different plots before separate document as
regards the properties purchased by them before the approved lay out plan viz
K.R.Pandiarajan in order to clear identification of the properties already 30
persons as per the approved registered separate deed of undertaking
identification of the approval in accordance 50 the Power Agent air as regards the
the sold by him to various out had executed a dated 27-03-1986 , In stated the
names of purchaser purchased before the lay out which the Power Agent
K.R.Pandiarajan had categorically approval and the Sale deed doe No and date
and the new no of plot assigned to their . respective purchase of the property as
per the approved lay out in the said registered deed of undertaking dated
27.0.1986 the name of the Serial.No.30 . and the properties purchased by him
was Defendants vendor A.N.Palaniaan was shown in the shown in serial No. 31 ,
32 33 and the serial No. 33 is the As per the approved lay out plan approval some
plots were item of the suit property identified as per the plan approval . classified
and shown as a plot area for the constructions proposed shops and as such the
3rd purchased item of property by the Defendants vendor A.N.Palaniappan was
shown and allotted as the shop area in the approved lay out plan Thus the serial
No. 33 shown in the deed of undertaking is the suit property purchased by the
Defendants vendor as 3rd item through his Sale deed dated 13-08-1984 . In the
said S.No.33 shown in the deed of undertaking dated 27-03-1986 the
identification of the suit property and it dis location and the nature of the
property as shop area were all details mentioned . But the Plaintiffs vendor
A.N.Palaniappan feels that the four boundaries mentioned for the 1 to 3 item of
properties in his Sale deed dated 13-08-84 which was executed before the
approval of lay out plan was not now tallied with the present four boundaries of
the 1 to 3 items has to be modified as per the merement of the approved lay out
plan in order to avoid ucessary complication in vendor A.N.Palaniappan the
Defendants future . Initially thought that the deed of undoing , dated 27-03-1986
to identify the plan but later on feels executed by the Power agent client the
necessity that the four boues and actual extent property as per the approved lay
P mentioned for the 1 to 3 item in his sale deed das per the approved lay the has
to be corrected dated 13-08-84 Defendants ‘ vendor and out accordingly
approached the plan had A.N.Palaniappan Power Agent K.R.pandiarajan in the
begin of the year 2009 and explaining him the necessity of eating a rectification
deed by correcting the four boundaries and extent in the sale deed dated 13-08-
1984 as per the approved lay out plan so as to identify and correlate the 1 to 3
ems found in the sale deed dated 13-08-1984 with that of the . found in the sale
deed dated 13-08-1984 and the properties approved lay our plan and to show ,
found in the proposed execution of the rectification are one and same . The
Power agent K.K.Pandiarajan by taking into consideration of the genuine request
of the Defendant’s had accordingly executed a vendor A.N.Palaniappan properties
found in the that both the properties registered rectification deed dated 30-03-
2009 through which the mistakes erupted in the earlier sale deed dated 13-08-
1984 executed in favour of the Defendants ‘ vendor A.N.Palaniappan as regards
the four boundaries and location and extent were corrected and correct
boundaries and location and extent of the 1 to 3 items of the properties
comprised in the sale deed dated 13-08-1984 were clearly shown in the
rectification deed dated 30-03-1989 in accordance with the approved lay out
plan .
 4) it is submitted that the defendant vendor 2009 from the Power Agent
kandiarajan had sold away dated 27-03-1986 and the reaction deed dated 30-03
the entire 1 to 3 item of the property in favour of the Defendant deed dated 01-
04-2009 for a vi Properties It is submitted that both the a including the suit a
registered Sale through usable consideration . defendants who are husband and
wife after verifying the oral Sale deed dated 13-08 . 1984 of their vendor
A.N.Piappan and the deed of undertaking dated 27-03-1984 and the rectification
deed dated 30-03-2009 and identify the 1 to 3 item of properties had purchased
the same for suable consideration and the Defendants after the purchase of the 1
to 3 items of the properties had constructed a 3 items of property to prevent I
wall around the 1 to Compound the trespassers and had applied for change of
patta to their name before the Tahsildar .
5) At this juncture the revenue authorities had found out the execution of the
sale deed dated 27-03-1986 the Power agent K.R.Pandiarajan the property
comprised in S.No 163 / 1A to the extent of 2400 square feet and in addition the
plaintiff had preferred a Police IN favour of the plaintiff for the defendants had
complaint by complaining that constructed a compound around his property and
after police enquiry the police officials advised both the Plaintiff and defendant to
seek Civil remedies and accordingly both the Defendants had filed a suit in
O.S.No. 20/18 before the Taluk Munsif , Madurai for a relief of permanent
injunction against the Plaintiff herein and in the said suit the Plaintiff herein had
appeared and filed statement and now the suit is pending for disposal .
6 ) It is submitted that after the above suit in O.S.No.20 / 2018 this Plaintiff herein
had filed the above suit deed dated 27-03-1986 had are feet out 2760 square feet
per the sake Plaintiff as in S.No. 163 / 1A but the deed had purchased 1 to 3 items
of property from another and out of purchased an extent of 2400 acres 1 to 3 d
items the 3d item purchased property but the defendant h property to an extent
of 4572 the Defendants is the suit sq feet and the Plaintiff had purchased 3rd item
of the purchased an extent 2400eet only out of 2760 sq.ft. It seems that the
Plaintiff had chased the property of 2400 to get patta for the said extent of 2400
sq.ft and did not take sq.ft in the year 1986 but the plaintiff did not take steps any
steps to sub divide the re separate patta for the area of his extent of 4572 and got
a purchase of 2400 sq.ft and for the past 35 years the had not taken any steps to
fence his property or to effect Change of Patta in his favour . the Plaintiff had not
stated no where in the plaint that he joyed the suit property after Further it is
pertinent to note that . his purchase of the same and from this it is crystal clear
that the plaintiff had not enjoyed the suit property or even entered into the suit
property after his purchase in the year 1986 which clearly reveals that the Plaintiff
sale deed dated 2703 1986 is a sham and nominal transaction and the sale deed
was not acted upon . But on the contra the defendants vendor A.N.Palaniappan
had purchased 1 to 3 items of suit properties including the suit property from the
Power Agent K.R.Pandiarajan through a registered Sale deed dated 13-08-1984
much prior to the purchase of the plaintiff and in addition the deed of
undertaking was executed on 27-03 1986 which clearly identifies the properties of
the defendants vendor Palaniappan .
7 ) It is submitted that the deed of undertaking was executed because of the
passing of the approval of lay out plan for the properties.