SARGURU ALIAS KANDASAMY GOUNDER Vs. KRISHNASAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 30.09.1999 made in A.S. No.29 of 1996 on the file of Sub-Court, Udumalpet, reversing the judgment and decree dated 12.01.1996 made in O.S. No.341 of 1994 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pollachi.

(2.) THE averment in the Plaint is as follows: (i) THE Plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property. Originally the suit property is owned by Plaintiff-s father Raman Chettiar and his brother Lakshman Chettiar. THE Plaintiff-s mother mallammal purchased the property from the other family members. After the death of Malammal, the Plaintiff inherited the property as her sole legal heir and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same as an absolute owner. THE patta also stands in his name. THE First Defendant has got lands on the East of the suit property. THE Third Defendant is his daughter. THE Second Defendant is his son-in-law, who is none other than the husband of the Third Defendant. THE Defendants are having Pucca road just abutting his property. He can have access to his lands directly from the road and he need not pass through the Plaintiff-s lands. (ii)THE First Defendant requested the Plaintiff to permit him to lay an underground pipeline through the suit property connecting the Defendant-s lands and an Odai, Which is situated on the West of suit property. THE Plaintiff refused to do so. So, the Defendants are frequently trying to trespass into the suit property. Hence, the Plaintiff is constrained to file the Suit for injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment and he prayed for a decree.

(3.) THE Respondent as Plaintiff filed a Suit for bare injunction stating that originally the suit property is owned by Plaintiff-s father Raman Chettiar and his brother Lakshman Chettiar. THE Plaintiff-s mother Mallamal purchased the property from the other family members. After the death of Malammal, the Plaintiff inherited the property as her sole legal heir and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same as an absolute owner. Now, the Defendants/Appellants attempted to interfere with his possession. Hence, the Plaintiff/Respondent come forward with the Suit. THE Defendants/Appellants herein have resisted the Suit stating that they purchased the property from the uncle of the Plaintiff/Respondent herein. THEy are having the right to use the cart track situated in South of the suit property of both Appellants/Defendants and Respondent/Plaintiff. Hence, they prayed for the dismissal of the Suit. THE Trial Court after framing necessary issues and considering the oral and documentary evidence dismissed the Suit. But the First Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the cart track is absolutely belonging to the Respondent/Plaintiff and allowed the Appeal and decreed the Suit as prayed for in the Plaint. Against that, the Second Appeal has been preferred by the Appellants/Defendants.