KANAGARAJ Vs. PAPATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs, who lost in both the Courts below are the the appellants.

(2.) THE plaintiffs/appellants filed a suit for injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

(3.) IT was further contested that the 1st plaintiff's husband Kanagaraju sought permission of Vellaisamy Nadar for putting up a shed in the disputed portion and that a letter was written by him on 17.10.1971 and that would also prove that the plaintiffs were in permissive possession of the entire extent of the property and under Ex.B4, the other two heirs of Sellathammal, Somasundaram, Sadasivan entered into an agreement of sale in respect of the property of an extent of 210 feet east-west and 67 feet north-south and in pursuance of the sale agreement, Ex.B6, Sale Deed was executed by Somasundaram, Chandrasekar, S/o.Sadasivam and Vijayalakshmi, the vendor of the plaintiff in respect of the same extent of the property to the defendants and even prior to that, under Ex.B9, Vijayalakshmi, the vendor of the plaintiff mortgaged the said property to Vellaisamy Nadar and therefore, the 1st plaintiff's husband in the year 1971 sought permission of Vellaisamy Nadar to put a shed in the suit property, which is situate in between the houses of the plaintiffs and the defendants and therefore, the plaintiffs cannot claim any title and possession of the suit property.