V.CHANDRAGANTHA Vs. R.KANAGARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 2nd defendant in the suit is the appellant. The respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit seeking declaration that the Sale Deed dtd. 6/7/2001 executed by the 3rd respondent/1st defendant is null and void and also permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs also sought for partition of 2/3rd share in the suit property. The respondents 1 and 2 also sought for permanent injunction restraining the 2nd defendant from alienating or encumbering the suit property.

(2.) The Trial Court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the respondents 1 and 2 filed an appeal in A.S.No.82 of 2014 before the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore. The First Appellate Court reversed the findings of the Trial Court and allowed the appeal and granted decree for partition, declaration and injunction against the alienation as prayed for. The prayer in respect of the absolute injunction was dismissed. Aggrieved by the judgement and decree passed by the First Appellate Court, the 2nd defendant in the suit has come up by way of this second appeal.

(3.) According to the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs, the suit property is ancestral property and hence, they are entitled to 2/3 share in the suit property. Originally the suit property was allotted to the share of their father R.Rangasamy namely the 3rd respondent. Originally there was a partition in the family between the father of the respondents 1 and 2 namely R.Rangasamy, his brother Duraisamy and grandfather Ramanna Gounder on 14/3/1991 and the suit property was allotted to the share of 3rd respondent under C-Schedule to the said partition document. It is the case of the respondents 1 and 2 that they have been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property along with 3rd respondent without any hindrance from third parties. On 16/7/2012, the respondents 1 and 2 came to know of the Sale Deed executed by the 3rd respondent in favour of the appellant and therefore, they were constrained to file the suit seeking above said relief.