NAGALAKSHMI (DIED) Vs. SIVAPRAKASAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is against the concurrent findings of the Courts below. The legal heirs of the defendants are the appellants herein. Since there are two earlier proceedings between the parties in respect of the suit property, parties are described by name, wherever required and as per their litigative status in the respective proceedings, as far as possible.

(2.) The property which is the subject matter of this appeal is one acre wet land in Seeyathamangai Village, Nannilam Taluk, Nagapattinam. It was assigned to one Murugaiyan an Ex-Serviceman, under the Tamil Nadu Land Reforms Act. He remained unmarried and died issueless. During his life time, Nagalakshmi, who is the first defendant/first appellant herein, filed O.S.No.197/1987 for the relief of permanent injunction in respect of this property against Murugaiyan, Ranganathan and Sivasami. In that suit Nagalakshmi pleaded that Murugaiyan after retirement from Army was living with her family and he was taken care by her and her family members. On 01/08/1974, he leased out the suit property to her and handed over the possession to her. She and her son paid the balance instalments for the property and enjoying it. Further, Murugaiyan also executed a will dated 18/02/1975 in favour of her son. While so, at the instigation of others he gave a petition to the Legal Service Authority as if she is in possession of the property illegally. In that proceedings Nagalakshmi agreed to hand over the possession to Murugaiyan if he repay Rs.3,500/- which she spend towards the payment of tax, instalments and interest to the instalments. Without paying the money spend for the property, Murugaiyan trying to forcefully take possession of the property.

(3.) The suit was contested by Murugaiyan denying the execution of lease deed in favour of the Nagalakshmi. It was alleged as a fabricated document. However, the Courts held that the lease deed marked as Ex.A-20 in O.S.No.197 of 1987 is valid and the plaintiff is in lawful possession of the property. The trial Court granted the relief of injunction in favour of the plaintiff. On appeal, same was confirmed by the First Appellate Court in A.S.No.6 of 1990.