KUPPUSAMY GOUNDER Vs. KANNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants in these appeals are the plaintiffs in suit in O.S. No. 140 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsifs Court, Tindivanam, seeking for declaration of their title to the suit schedule properties and for permanent injunction in S. No. 4/1 measuring about 3.26 acres at Meladayalam Village. THE respondents 1 and 2 are the wife and son of one Narayanasamy Gounder, the first defendant in the above suit, who filed a separate suit in O.S. No. 154 of 1984 on the file of the District Munsif's Court, Tindivanam, for declaration of his title to the suit properties and for permanent injunction against the appellants in respect of four items including S. No. 4/1.

(2.) THE trial Court decreed the suit in O.S. No. 140 of 1984 filed by the appellants and dismissed the suit in O.S. No. 154 of 1984 filed deed dated 22.2.1982. THE properties allotted to the plaintiffs 1 to 4 were described as Schedule A, B, C, D. THE father of the plaintiffs had not retained any share in the suit property. Narayanasamy Gounder, the first defendant taking advantage of the difference of opinion between the plaintiffs and their father, filed a suit in O.S. No. 596 of 1979 against their father and brother and obtained a collusive decree for partition of 1/3 share in the suit property. In that suit, though the plaintiffs attained majority at the time of the suit, were not impleaded. THE father of the plaintiffs also was not arrayed as a Karta of the family. Taking advantage of the decree in O.S. No. 596 of 1979, the defendants were denying the title of the plaintiffs and interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment. Hence, the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction.

(3.) THEREAFTER, the respondents 1 and 2 adduced evidence to show that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Narayansamy Gounder. On the side of the respondents, Exs. B6 to B9 were marked and Kannammal and Kabali, the respondents 1 and 2 and Kuppusamy Nadar and Govindasamy, the local villagers also were examined to prove the marriage between the deceased and the first respondent. On the side of the appellants. Elumalai, the second appellant was examined to prove that the said marriage was not valid, since her marriage with one other Natesa Gounder was subsisting and there was no customary divorce.