THIRUNAVUKKARASU Vs. GOWRI (DIED)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is preferred by the unsuccessful Defendants assailing the Judgment and Decree, dated February 21, 2019 passed in A.S. No.06 of 2012 by the 'Subordinate Judge, Ponneri' (henceforth 'First Appellate Court'), whereby the Judgment and Decree, dated February 17, 2011 passed in O.S. No.340 of 2004 by the 'District Munsif Court, Ponneri' (henceforth 'Trial Court') was confirmed.

(2.) To be noted, during pendency of the Appeal Suit before the First Appellate Court, the Sole Plaintiff - Elumalai died and hence, the Respondent Nos.2 to 6 in the Appeal Suit (Respondent Nos.1 to 5 herein) were brought on record as his Legal Representatives. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.

(3.) The Suit property originally belonged to one Saradambal. The said Saradambal filed the Original Suit in O.S. No.200 of 1958 on the file of District Munsif Court, Poonamallee for Specific Performance against Balasundaram Chetty and others and the same was dismissed on August 3, 1961. Assailing the same, Saradambal filed an Appeal in A.S. No.354 of 1961 on the file of Sub-Court (sic District Court), Chengalpet and the same was allowed. Feeling aggrieved, Balasundaram Chetty and others filed Second Appeal in S.A. No.219 of 1964 before this Court and the same was dismissed. The said Saradambal and her son - Mohan had taken possession of the Suit property through Court by filing E.P. No.577 of 1972 and been in its possession and enjoyment. The husband of Saradambal as well as her son predeceased her. The said Saradambal had one sister by name Valliammal, who also passed away. The Plaintiff is the son of above said Valliammal and he is in possession and enjoyment of the Suit property after the death of Saradambal as her only Legal Heir. As the Plaintiff is employed in Porur, he is not able to permanently reside in the Suit Village. Taking advantage of the said fact, the Defendants without any right, attempted to interfere with the Plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Suit property on October 3, 2004. Hence, the Suit for Permanent Injunction. Defendants' case: