SUBRAMANIYAN Vs. VIJAYARANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful defendants 2 to 4 in O.S.No.118 of 1988, the unsuccessful D-2 and D-3 in O.S.No.500 of 1988 and the unsuccessful plaintiffs in O.S.No.138 of 1996 on the file of the Additional District Munsif No. Thiruvannamalai, preferred A.S.No.94 of 1998, A.S.No.95 of 1998 and A.S.No.93 of 1998 respectively and all the three appeals were dismissed on 25.3.1999 confirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court and aggrieved against this, they have come forward with the present second appeals.

(2.) THE case in brief for disposal of all the appeals is as follows: THE plaintiffs in O.S.No. 118 of 1998 filed a suit for declaration of title and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their men from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. THE Schedule mentioned property originally belonged to D-l. THE adjoined house on the eastern side bearing door No. 13-A originally constituted one single house bearing door No.13. D-l had 2 sons namely Kuppusamy and Subramani (D-2). THE 1st plaintiff is the legally wedded wife of Kuppusamy and the plaintiffs 2 to 5 were born to them out of the wedlock. Even during the lifetime of Kuppusamy and Subramani, there was family arrangement since Kuppusamy married the first plaintiff belonging to a different community. THE house property was divided into 2 equal shares and the eastern half to the 2nd defendant and they were also put in possession of their respective shares and in fact a partition wall was also put up in 1981. Subsequently, the assessment of the property for the western half bearing door No.l2-A was assessed in the name of Kuppusamy and the eastern half bearing door No. 13 was assessed in the name of D- 2. Similarly, separate demand notices were sent for electricity as well as water charges. D-l was cordially living with each one of his sons and daughters. Kuppusamy died interstate on 2.2.1985 and on his death the plaintiffs succeeded to the property detailed in the schedule. D-l started taking hostile attitude towards the plaintiffs after the death of Kuppusamy. D-2 instigated D-l to execute a settlement deed in favour of his minor children D-3 and D-4 and accordingly D-l who had no manner of right, interest or title over the suit property executed a settlement deed in favour of D-3 and D-4 and it is not valid and binding. THE defendants are openly asserting that the plaintiffs have no title in the property and hence, the suit was filed.

(3.) THE defendants 2 and 3 in O.S.No.118 of 1988 filed a separate suit in O.S.No.138 of 1996 for a declaration that they have got title to the suit property and also for recovery of possession. THE plaintiffs in O.S.No. 118 of 1988 are the defendants in O.S.No. 138 of 1996. Since the parties in O.S.No. 138 of 1996 have raised the very same averments raised by them in O.S.No. 118 of 1988, it is unnecessary to reproduce the same.