S BALASUBRAMANIAN Vs. MURUGAIYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Second Appeal has been brought by the unsuccessful defendants 1 and 2 against whom a suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein not to alienate and also not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property was decreed. As against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, when appeal was filed by the appellants 1 and 2, the first appellate Court accepting the case of the plaintiff/respondent also confirmed the judgment and decree.

(2.) (i)The plaintiff/respondent said to have purchased the suit property from one Padma, daughter of Kiruba Sankara Iyer on 31.5.1991 for valid consideration and a sale deed was also registered on 05.7.1991. Since then, the plaintiff/respondent has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Since the suit property is an old house situated in Punjai Manikat having 0.42 cents with the compound wall, the first appellant herein, close relative of plaintiff's vendor-Padma when attempted to alienate the property which has been in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff for more than 12 years, in favour of the second defendant without any right, the suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent on 4.3.2003 seeking permanent injunction not to alienate and also not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

(3.) The trial Court, considering the case of both sides came to the conclusion that the vendor of the plaintiff/respondent, Padma being first defendant's brother's daughter, has sold the property by way of sale deed dated 31.5.1991-Ex.A.1 for valuable consideration to the plaintiff and only D2 is the second purchaser knowing pretty well that the suit property was already sold to the plaintiff has purchased not the suit property but only the litigation, decreed the suit.