PERIYAMMAL Vs. AMMASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant in O.S.No.317 of 2013, who had suffered a decree for injunction before the trial Court upon its confirmation by the lower appellate Court, has come up with this second appeal.

(2.) The plaintiff claimed that the suit property originally belonged to one Kamatchi Gounder s/o Kuppaiyandi Gounder. The said Kamatchi had sold the same to one Pandian s/o Karuppanna Gounder on 11.05.1950. The said Pandiyan had been in possession and enjoyment of the property till 22.05.2006. Then he executed power of attorney in favour of one S.Ramar. It is claimed that the said Ramar acting under the said power of attorney had settled the property to one Susila on 22.03.2010. The said Susila in turn sold the same to the plaintiff on 22.11.2010. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, he is in possession and enjoyment of the property. Claiming that the defendant is attempting to interfere with his possession, the plaintiff has sought for decree for injunction.

(3.) The defendant resisted the suit by filing a written statement. While admitting the title of one Kamatchi s/o Kuppaiyandi Gounder and the sale deed executed in favour of Pandiyan by Kamatchi, the defendant would contend that the said sale deed dated 11.05.1950 is invalid, because the property is a joint family property and he never had absolute right to execute the sale deed in favour of Pandiyan. It was also claimed that the suit filed by Pandiyan in O.S.No.29 of 2003 seeking permanent injunction was also dismissed and therefore, the plaintiff cannot seek an injunction.