SINGAMUTHUPILLAI Vs. PANDITHURAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first defendant failed before the courts below in resisting the suit filed by the plaintiffs for declaration and permanent injunction, successfully, and the result is the second appeal.

(2.) THE respondents 1 and 2 as plaintiffs, have filed the suit for declaration that they are the absolute owners of the suit property, for permanent injunction against the appellant/first defendant from in any way interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiffs and for mandatory injunction, directing the second defendant to change the register and restore their names in the property register, for the suit property, contending that the suit property originally belonged to one subramaniya Pillai, who had 5 sons including the first defendant, that the first defendant after the death of his two elder brothers, released his share in favour of two brothers Natesapillai and Shanmugapillai, in pursuance of the family arrangement in or about middle of the year 1945 after receiving a sum of rs. 400/- in lieu of the share in the joint family, unable to discharge the debts incurred by the family, that thereafter, Natesapilai and Shanmugapillai were enjoying the properties in their own, that Natesapillai died without any issues, leaving the plaintiffs to succeed his share also in the suit properties along with the share of Shanmuga Pillai, the husband of the second plaintiff and the father of the first plaintiff, who is also died elsewhere in the year 1969; that thereafter, the plaintiffs alone were enjoying the suit property in their own right, that unfortunately, the first defendant changed the register in the municipal records in the year 1980, falsely claiming share in the suit house, which was objected and that in view of the attitude taken by the first defendant casting cloud over the title of the suit property, the plaintiffs are constrained to file the suit, for the above said relief.

(3.) THE first defendant, though lost in both the Courts, having failed in his defence, had questioned the judgment of the courts below in this appeal, on the following substantial question of law which reads:- "whether the courts below are right in accepting the claim of the plaintiff to the share of Natesan who died intestate in preference to appellant over the suit property, in the light of Section 6 and 8 of Hindu succession Act, 1956""