PANEER Vs. VIJAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant in the suit is the appellant in the second appeal. The plaintiff in the suit is the first respondent in the second appeal and the second defendant in the suit is the second respondent in the second appeal.

(2.) The suit was filed by the first respondent Vijaya arraying the appellant as the first defendant and second respondent as the second defendant for a declaration that the suit property absolutely belonged to her and for a consequential perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Admittedly, the suit property, namely an extent of 50 cents of land comprised in S.No.61/1D1 in Viswanthangal Village, Tiruvannamalai Taluk, Tiruvannamalai District belonged to the appellant Paneer and one Kala by virtue of allotment of the same to their share in a partition that took place in their family during their minority. Appellant/first defendant Paneer and deceased Kala, the son and the daughter of the second respondent/second defendant Andal Ammal. As guardian for the appellant and the said Kala, who were then minors, Andal Ammal executed a sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of Mannu Naidu, the father-in-law of Vijaya, the first respondent/plaintiff. According to the plaint allegations, after the death of Mannu Naidu, a partition in the family of Mannu Naidu was effected by a partition deed dated 22.03.2007 and the suit property having an extent of 50 cents was allotted to the share of Govindan, Son of Mannu Naidu, who is the husband of the first respondent/plaintiff Vijaya and the said Govindan, out of love and affection towards his wife (Vijaya) gifted the same to his wife by a registered settlement deed dated 22.03.2007 and handed over possession of the same to the first respondent/plaintiff.

(3.) The further averment made by the first respondent/plaintiff in the plaint is that from the date of purchase, namely from 20.09.1985, the property was in the possession and enjoyment of Mannu Naidu; that after the death of Mannu Naidu, his legal heirs were in possession and enjoyment of the same; that they effected partition on 22.03.2007 as aforesaid and that after the said partition and the settlement dated 22.03.2007, the plaintiff who became the absolute owner was in continuous and uninterrupted possession and enjoyment of the same. Based on the above said averments along with a further averment that the appellant and the second respondent (Defendants 1 and 2) made attempts to trespass into the suit property, the first respondent/plaintiff filed the suit praying for a declaration that the first respondent/plaintiff was the absolute owner of the suit property and for a consequential perpetual injunction to protect her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.