DHANALAKSHMI Vs. SAMUNDEESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff, who have filed the suit for bare injunction before the learned trial court, as has lost her case before learned first Additional District Munsif Court. The brief facts leading to the second appeal is as under:

(2.) The prayer was opposed by the defendants/ respondents herein. It was also the case of the defendants/ respondents that at the time of executing the settlement deed, her father Veerappagounder was not in sound and disposing state of mind for a period of more than 2 years, due to his illness. Therefore, the alleged settlement deed dated 23.01.1998 was a created, false and forged document. It was also the case of the defendants that both the plaintiff and the first defendant are entitled to have half share in the suit property and at no point of time the defendants demanded any money from the plaintiff. Therefore, pleading that the allegation is baseless, further contended, the averments made in the plaint that the defendants threatened the plaintiff, with a threat that they would not allow or permit the plaintiff to cultivate the land is far from truth. With these submissions, they prayed that the suit filed for permanent injunction is liable to be dismissed.

(3.) Under these circumstances, the matter was taken up for trial. The learned trial court framed the following issues: