NARASIMHAN Vs. SADAGOPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit filed for declaration and consequential injunction in respect of the suit property was allowed by the trial Court but was partly reversed by the first appellate Court declining the relief of declaration. Hence, the second appeal, by the aggrieved plaintiffs.

(2.) The relevant facts necessary for deciding this appeal in nutshell: Case of the plaintiffs:

(3.) When the Government acquired 2.17 acres of land, out of 12.19 acres purchased in the name of their mother Sundarakannu ammal, which was given to the shares of her 5 sons, as per the family arrangement, the 3 rd defendant sought a share in the compensation amount. The plaintiffs refused to accede her request, since under the family arrangement, she had no right in it. Disgruntled by the refusal, the 3 rd defendant through her sons, who are the first and second defendants, out of animosity started troubling the plaintiffs enjoyment of the suit property. In this connection, police complaint was given against the defendants by Narayana Pillai. To protect their title and possession, the suit laid.