ANNA SELVAM AMMAL Vs. PONNU NADAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved over the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ambasamudram, confirming the judgment of the trial Court namely the District Munsif Court of the said place in a suit for recovery of possession in respect of the first item and injunction in respect of the second item of the immovable properties, the defendant in the suit has brought forth this second appeal.

(2.) Short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff Ponnu Nadar was of Christian religion and faith. His eldest son by name Daniel died 2 + years prior to the initiation of the proceedings. The defendant, daughter-in-law, was also living with him. The father of the plaintiff died 35 years ago, and the mother of the plaintiff also died a month ago prior to the litigation. The plaintiff and his sister were the only heirs of their parents. The first son of the plaintiff had no right in the properties. Despite the same, by way of abundant caution, a release deed, exhibited as Ex.A1, was obtained from him on 28.4.1981, and he executed the same by receiving a sum of Rs.5,000/-. On permission by the plaintiff, the daughter-in-law, the defendant, was occupying the first item of the property. The said permission was cancelled by way of a notice on 2.4.1 985. In the first item of property, there were row of shops, and they were kept under the lock and key by the plaintiff. While so, on 25 .3.1985, the defendant broke open the lock and trespassed into the property. Under such circumstances, a police complaint was lodged, and enquiry was on. Hence, there arose a necessity for filing the suit for the said reliefs.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendant daughter-in-law stating that it is not correct to state that the plaintiff's family belonged to the Christian faith; but, they constituted a Hindu joint family; that there was no necessity for the husband to execute the alleged release deed; that it was tainted with invalidating factors; that they have been enjoying the first item of property, a house, as members of the joint family and also on their own right, and hence, no question of permission granted by the plaintiff, would arise; that the second item of property, a shop, was also in their occupation all along; that while so, by way of a coercive method to take the property from the hands of the defendant, this suit has been brought forth; that when a notice was issued, the defendant demanded rendition of accounts from the father-in-law; that aggrieved over the same, he has filed the instant suit, and hence, the suit was to be dismissed.