E K PALANISAMY Vs. MANONMANI; PANEER SELVI; KAMALAVALLI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Civil Revision Petition is filed against the fair and decreetal order dated 17.06.2011 made in I.A.No.51 of 2011 in O.S.No.208 of 2008 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Kangeyam.

(2.) The respondents herein as the plaintiffs filed a suit for bare injunction stating that the suit property is the ancestral property of their father Kaliappa Gounder and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same and he paid kists and since he died intestate on 03.01.2011, the plaintiffs, who are the daughters of Kaliappa Gounder and his wife are succeeded the property. The plaintiffs have partitioned the property and in pursuance of the partition, there was a mutation of revenue records. Since the defendant/revision petitioner herein, without any right, attempted to interfere with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property, the plaintiffs constrained to file a suit for bare injunction.

(3.) The defendant has filed a written statement stating that Kaliappa Gounder is not in possession and enjoyment of the suit property and patta also not stands in his name. The suit property and other properties are owned by one Subbaraya Gounder, who died bachelor, but he adopted his brother's daughter namely, Valliammal, who is the mother of defendant. The said Subbaraya Gounder had executed the Will in favour of the defendant and his brothers on 15.09.1976 and he died in the year 1977 and as legatees, the defendant and his brothers are in possession of the suit property. The father of the defendant namely, Kumarasamy Gounder purchased the suit property and other properties on 15.09.1976 from Valliammal and Pappathiammal and he died on 18.09.1982 and in pursuance of the sale deed and Will, the defendant and his brothers are in possession and enjoyment of the same and the defendant has purchased the properties from his brothers on 04.03.2008 and he is in possession and enjoyment of the same and the mutation of revenue records have also been made in this regard. So the partition deed executed between the plaintiffs is not true and genuine.