G ELUMALAI Vs. MARIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Revision Petition arises out of the Order dated 19. 01. 2004 made in I. A. No. 2604 of 2003 in O. S. No. 172 of 2003 by the District Munsif, Poonamallee, partly allowing the Petition filed under Order 26 Rule 9 C. P. C appointing the Advocate Commissioner to note down the physical features of the Suit Property. The Defendant is the Revision Petitioner.

(2.) O. S. NO. 172 of 2003:- The Suit Property relates to Door No. 4, Plot No. 72, situated in S. No. 215 in Valasaravakkam Village. Case of the Plaintiff is that she has purchased the Suit Property from one Jayarama Mudaliar under a Sale Deed dated 26. 01. 1982. After the purchase, the Plaintiff was in possession and enjoyment of the entire lands. The Defendant is the Son of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff settled the Suit Property in favour of the Defendant by a Settlement Deed dated 24/4/1985. The Plaintiff has two Sons and Three Daughters and they were all living together. Even though Settlement Deed was executed by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, the Plaintiff did not deliver the Suit Property to the Defendant. The Building was under construction stage. Though in the Settlement Deed it is stated that the possession was handed over, actual possession was not handed over to the Defendant. After the Defendant's marriage, the Defendant started giving trouble to the Defendant. The Defendant filed the Suit in O. S. No. 123 of 2000 on the file of Sub-Court, Poonamallee against the Plaintiff and others. Likewise, the Defendant has also filed O. S. No. 125 of 2002 and 426 of 2002 on the file of the District Munsif court, Poonamallee against the Plaintiff and others. Since the Defendant has been repeatedly causing trouble to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has cancelled the Settlement Deed dated 24. 04. 1985. Thus, the Settlement Deed in favour of the Defendant is duly cancelled. On 24. 07. 2003, the Defendant has attempted to lock the premises and attempted to evict the Plaintiff and the same was prevented by the Plaintiff with great difficulty. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed the Suit for Permanent Injunction and also for other reliefs.

(3.) DENYING the allegations in the Plaint, the Defendant has filed the Written Statement, tracing his Title to the Settlement Deed dated 24/4/1985. According to the Defendant, cancellation of the Settlement Deed is not valid and not binding on the Defendant and the Defendant is ignoring the Cancellation Deed. Since the Defendant's younger Brother Venkatesan attempted to interfere with the Defendant's possession, the Defendant had filed the Suit for Permanent Injunction in O. S. No. 426 of 2002. At the time when the Property was settled in favour of the Defendant, it was only a vacant site. Only the Defendant had put up the construction over the same. Since the Plaintiff is not in possession and enjoyment of any portion of the Suit Property, the Suit for Injunction is not maintainable.