KANNAIYAN Vs. CHINNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE second appeals are preferred against the judgment and decree dated 18.09.1992 in A.S. Nos: 26 and 27 of 1990 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram, thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.12.1989 in O.S. Nos: 833 of 1987 and 1023 of 1987 on the file of District Munsif Court, Chidambaram.

(2.) TRACING the history of the above second appeals coming to be preferred by the plaintiff in the suit, it comes to be known that the plaintiff in O.S. No: 833 of 1987 has filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's possession of the suit schedule property for her lifetime on averments such as that the plaintiff is the second wife of one Kunjithapatham who was the real owner of the property; that the first wife's children have obtained partition from their father and are living separately; that Kunijithapatham was living with the plaintiff; that on 6.5.1965 he executed a settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of "A" schedule property measuring 0.96 cents and further executed a lifetime settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff in respect of "B" Schedule property; that according to the settlement deed the daughters of Kunjithapatham viz. Rajalakshmi and Indirani are to get the "B" Schedule property after the lifetime of the plaintiff; that the plaintiff has sold the "A" Schedule property; that on 25.11.1972 the plaintiff, Rajalakshmi and Indirani had mortgaged the "B" Schedule property in favour of the husband of the second defendant and it was redeemed on 25.11.1981; that the plaintiff is cultivating the land; that the plaintiff is residing in the land and has been duly paying all the taxes; that the defendants threatened the plaintiff that they are going to purchase the said property from the daughters of Kunjithapatham; that the plaintiff has a right over the suit schedule property out of the settlement deed and hence, prays for a permanent injunction.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the said judgment, both the parties preferred appeals in A.S.Nos. 26 and 27 of 1990 before the Court of Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram, and the said Court also tracing the facts as pleaded before the trial court and framing the points (1) Is the settlement deed dated 6.5.1965 marked as Ex.A.2 is sustainable in law" (2) Whether Ex.B.1 and B.2 are legally sustainable and on the basis of those two documents whether the defendants are entitled to the relief prayed for" and (4) to what relief, if any, both the parties are entitled to", and appreciating the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, would dismiss the appeals, without costs, thereby confirming the judgment of the lower court, as per its judgment dated 18.09.1992.