R. KANNIAH CHETTY Vs. L. BALASUNDARAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 3 rd defendant is the appellant before this Court. The parties are referred to in the same rank and array as before the trial Court.

(2.) The plaintiffs herein had filed the suit O.S.No.53 of 2002 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Pallipattu, for declaring their 1/4 th share each in the suit well, Service Connection No.27, motor and pumpset. etc., for granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendants 4 to 7 from shifting the suit service connection from the suit well to any other well or borewell and for a mandatory injunction directing the defendants to restore the suit service in the name of the 1 st plaintiff as they put together half share in the suit service or to restore the service in the name of Valliammal. The plaintiffs have instituted the suit stating that the suit well which is situate in S.F.No.227/7 measuring 0.16 cents was a common well belonging to the plaintiffs 1 and 2, Valliammal and the 3 rd defendant. The defendants 1 and 2 are the sons of Valliammal. It is their further case that the service connection, motor and pumpset, etc., were being used by all the four sharers equally to cultivate the lands. The loan had been obtained in the name of Valliammal and out of this loan, the service connection was also obtained in the name of Valliammal. The four sharers had contributed equally to discharge the above loan. In recognition of the right of each sharer to the suit well, pumpset, motor and service connection, an Agreement dated 01.05.1986 was entered into between Valliammal, the plaintiffs and the 3 rd defendant. In the said Agreement, it was clearly mentioned that each of them have a 1/4 th share in the well. That apart, the Agreement had also narrated the loan borrowed by Valliammal for a common purpose and that the fact that each of them held a 1/4 th share in the Service connection No.27 and in the motor and pumpset. The Agreement further stipulated that the sharers can take water only to irrigate the lands falling under the schedule well and not for irrigating other lands which did not come within the suit well.

(3.) In the year 1990, Valliammal died and her sons defendants 1 and 2 succeeded to her interest. They had only a 1/4 th share in the suit well. Thereafter, the defendants 1 to 3 colluded together and with a view to defeat the rights of the plaintiffs had created nominal Sale Deeds.