PONNIAMMAL, RAJAMANI Vs. MANJAKALIAN @ KALIAN, RAJATHI, THANGAVEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present second appeal has been brought by the defendants 1 and 4 after aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate Court which reversed the judgment of the trial Court. The defendants 1 and 4 are the appellants herein.

(2.) The plaintiff/first respondent herein has filed the suit for declaration of title with regard to the suit properties described in the plaint schedule and also prayed for decree for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants/appellants herein, their men and servants from interfering in any manner with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties with the plaintiff. The plaintiff and defendants are close relatives.

(3.) The plaintiff Manjakalian @ Kalian is the son of Muthusamy Naicker. The defendants 1 and 2 are daughters of Chinnasamy Naicker. The plaintiff married second defendant, who is the daughter of Chinnasamy Naicker. Chinnasamy Naicker is the maternal uncle and father-in-law of the plaintiff, who is also the brother-in-law of the plaintiff's father Muthusamy Naicker. They jointly purchased a suit property in the year 1943 for a sum of Rs.1,500/-. However, Rs.500/- was paid in cash and the balance amount of Rs.1,000/- was not able to be paid to the vendor. Therefore, they executed a pronote. Subsequently to discharge the pronote, Muthusamy Naicker has executed mortgage deeds dated Ex.A2 and Ex.A3 dated 12.6.1943. Subsequently to discharge even that mortgage Muthusamy Naicker, father of the plaintiff, by executing one another sale deed Ex.A4 dated 5.6.1945, sold one of his property for a sum of Rs.50/- and that mortgage was also discharged by Muthusamy Naicker. Under this background, the case of the plaintiff, as made before the trial Court was that Muthusami Naicker purchased the suit property covered in the sale deed dated 5.6.1945 and Chinnasamy Naicker being his son-in-law, in order to give him some respectable status in village as he was not having any land, the suit properties were jointly purchased by them since in those days, a man who is not having no property, has no right of franchise. It was averred in the plaint that the plaintiff's father Muthusamy Naicker by joining his brother-in law cum son-in-law Chinnasamy Naicker has purchased the suit properties. Chinnasamy Naicker just before his death said to have been executed a Ex.B1 Will dated 29.10.1983 in favour of defendants 1 and 3. By virtue of the Will, defendants 1 and 3 cannot interfere with the suit properties. On this basis, when the suit was laid, a detailed written statement was also filed by defendants 1 and 3. Both defendants 1 and 2, who are daughters of Chinnasamy Naicker, have mentioned that D2 was married to the plaintiff.