GOPAL Vs. PONNUSAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.47 of 2001, whose suit for bare injunction was dismissed in respect of Item No.5 of the suit properties, has come up with the Second Appeal.

(2.) The suit was laid by the plaintiff seeking an injunction, contending that the suit properties belonged to Iyyaru, who died leaving the plaintiff and the defendants 1 & 2 as his legal heirs. The plaintiff would further plead that there was a family arrangement between the parties, namely, the plaintiff and the defendants 1 & 2, as evidenced by Ex.A6. According to the plaintiff, the suit properties were allotted to him under the said family arrangement and he had been in possession and enjoyment of the same. On the strength of the above pleadings, the plaintiff sought for permanent injunction.

(3.) The defendants, in fact, conceded the title and possession of the plaintiff, in respect of Item Nos.1 to 4 and 6. As regards the Item No.5 of the suit properties, it was claimed by the defendants that the first defendant was a tenant of the entire extent of 42 cents and the second respondent had purchased an extent of 21cents from the original owners of the property. It was further contended that the first defendant had released tenancy rights in favour of the third defendant. Therefore, according to the defendants, the plaintiff would have never been in possession of Item No.5 and therefore he is not entitled for decree for injunction in respect of Item No.5 of the suit properties.