SUBRAMANI Vs. ARUN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The third and fourth defendants in O.S.No.158 of 2010 are the appellants herein, feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree in O.S.No.158 of 2010 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal, dtd. 10/12/2013, in and by which, the prayer of the plaintiffs, for partition and separate possession of 1/4 th share in the suit property and for permanent injunction restraining the third defendant from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, was decreed. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their array in the Original Suit itself. B. The Plaint :

(2.) The plaintiff is the son of Periyasamy and Chinnammal, the first and second defendants in the suit. The fourth defendant, Sasi, is the daughter of the first and second defendants. The fifth defendant, Senthil, is the son of the first and second defendants. The third defendant, Subramani, is the husband of the fourth defendant, Sasi. While so, on 17/8/1994, through partition, certain ancestral properties came to the share of the first plaintiff which were agricultural lands in Muthugapatti village. On 20/6/2001, the plaintiff, the defendants 1, 2, 4 and 5 jointly sold the same for a sale consideration of Rs.2,30,000.00 and out of the said sale proceeds, the suit property was purchased in the name of the first and second defendants on 2/7/2001. The suit property was enjoyed as the joint family property. One year before the filing of the suit, by obtaining bank loan, a house was built in the suit property. The loan was repaid only by the plaintiff and the fifth defendant. The plaintiff is residing at Coimbatore and carrying on his business and has been visiting his parents and is living in the suit property.

(3.) While so, the fourth defendant, being the daughter, was married to the third defendant, who was working at Saudi at that point of time. The fourth defendant was married with all the stridhana and the other articles, according to the status of the parties in the year 1999. While so, in the year 2004, the third defendant promised employment for the plaintiff in abroad and for that purpose, obtained Rs.4,00,000.00 from the plaintiff. After obtaining such amount, work permit and visa, sent by the third defendant to the plaintiff, was found to be bogus. However, considering the relationship with the third defendant, the plaintiff did not take any action. In the year 2006, the third defendant promised that he himself will again get employment and visa at his expense and he wanted to obtain bank loan for the said purposes and therefore, in the guise of loan documents, made the first and second defendants to execute a document on 17/3/2006. Even thereafter, in the year 2009, the third defendant only supplied bogus work permit.