THANGAVEL Vs. R. MARAGATHAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE third defendant, in a suit for permanent injunction, has projected this instant Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2005 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, in A.S. No. 58 of 2005 wherein and by which the judgment and decree dated 07.01.2005 made in O.S. No. 301 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore, was reversed allowing the First Appeal at the instance of the plaintiff.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that the suit property situate in S. No. 116/1B1 in Veerakeralam Village, along with the other properties, originally belonged to the first defendant. Defendants 2 and 4 are first defendant's daughters while the third defendant is the husband of the second defendant. It is stated that when the first defendant decided to sell the properties, she gave a Power of Attorney dated 09.8.1999 in favour of the second defendant, who, also on the strength of the same, sold the property on 28.8.2000 in favour of the plaintiff and put her in possession. It is further contended by the plaintiff that when the sale was effected, the boundaries were demarcated with boundary stones and possession was given to her. According to the plaintiff, the houses belonging to defendants are situate on the west and south of the suit properties and on the north of the suit property, there are three row shops constructed by the first defendant of which 2 were sold by her to third parties. The plaintiff's husband is carrying on business in one of the shops having purchased the same from one Muthaiah, who earlier purchased from the first defendant and he has been using the suit property for stocking the cement bags. While so, on 05.3.2002, the defendants demanded the plaintiff to convey the property back to them and warned them of dire consequences. Apprehending danger to the life and the property, the plaintiff gave a police complaint and filed the suit.

(3.) DEFENDANTS 1, 2 and 4 remained ex parte and the third defendant alone filed written statement. According to the third defendant, who is the husband of the second defendant, the property in 116/1B1 of Veerakeralam Village, was of a larger extent, ie., 1.56 Acres which belonged to one Ayammal, mother of his mother -in -law Sivagamiammal, who laid out the property and sold the same retaining 23 Cents and 66 Sq.ft. for herself. It is stated that of the above extent retained by Ayammal, 3512 Sq.ft. was sold in his favour and he has also been in possession of the property from the date of sale. After the death of Ayammal in 1983, the first defendant who became the only legal heir inherited the lands and sold in portions to third parties. The plaintiff is one such purchaser from the first defendant. The plaintiff purchased an extent of 1258 Sq.ft. on 29.8.2000 from the first defendant. The third defendant also disputed the extent and the boundaries mentioned in the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and hence, prayed for dismissal of the suit.