NIRMALA Vs. SUBASH SEHGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S. No. 64 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional District Judge, Coimbatore has come forward with this Appeal suit as against the partial decree granted in her favour. In other words, she filed a suit for decree for declaration and permanent injunction. But the trial Court on appreciation of the entire evidence, has granted a decree to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the suit property along with her sister Vimala and consequently, there will be permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff till the suit property is divided between the plaintiff and the first defendant by metes and bounds.

(2.) As per the plaint averments, the suit property belonged to one Sinnappa Pillai, grandfather of the plaintiff. During his life time, Sinnappa Pillai executed a Will dtd. 13/3/1974 registered as document No. 18/1974 in favour of his wife Susaiammal. As per the Will, the testator has bequeathed the property in favour of his wife with condition that she shall enjoy the property till her life time and after her life time it will be bequeathed in favour of his unmarried daughter Josephine. The Will came into effect as Sinnappa Pillai died on 19/7/1978 and consequently his wife died on 17/4/1987. By virtue of the Will, Josephine was in possession and occupation of the suit property till her death on 11/2/2007.

(3.) It is asserted by the plaintiff that Josephine died as spinster and therefore on the death of Josephine, she and her sister Vimala had become the legal heirs of Josephine and are entitled to succeed the estate of Josephine. It is also claimed that the plaintiff and her sister Vimala have also succeeded their father's property by inheritance in Chennai as well as the suit property of their aunt, Josephine in Pollachi. Reference was also made to a suit in C.S. No. 867 of 2007 filed by the plaintiff against her sister Vimala, in which, a compromise decree was passed on 21/11/2007. According to the plaintiff, she is peacefully living in the suit property and a portion of the suit property was rented out to a third party and she is collecting rents.