KOTHANDARAMAN Vs. GOPALAKRISHNAN ALIAS RAVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit who have lost before the lower appellate court.

(2.) RESPONDENT 1 & 2/plaintiffs filed the suit in o. S. No. 213 of 2001 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry for bare injunction claiming to be in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties. The appellants/defendants 1 and 2 resisted the suit by filing written statement. The trial court having analysed the evidence both oral and documentary adduced on either side found that the plaintiffs have not made out any case for granting permanent injunction against the defendants and therefore dismissed the suit.

(3.) THE averments in the written statement filed by the appellants herein/defendants 1 and 2 and the 3rd defendant and adopted by the defendants 4 to 6, are briefly as follows:- (a) THEse defendants deny that the suit properties were in the possession and enjoyment of Rangasamy @ Govindasamy from 1936 and that there was a partition between the said Rangasamy @ Govindasamy on the one hand and Palaniraja, Dhandapani and Manohar and the plaintiffs on the other wherein the suit properties fell into the share of the plaintiffs. THE defendants also deny that the partition deed dated 28. 12. 1995 was executed among the said persons. (b) THE suit properties along with other properties of the deceased Appavoo Gramani devolved upon the lineal descendants of the said four sons and there was no partition entered into between the sons of Appavoo gramani in respect of the suit properties. THErefore the said Rangasamy @ govindasamy had not derive exclusive title over the suit properties as alleged in the plaint, for the reason that their father Palaniraja was alive at that time. Similarly, after the death of Rangasamy @ Govindasamy, his 1/4th share in the suit property was inherited by the said Palaniraja along with his younger brother Dhandapani and his eldest sister Saraswathi. Consequently, the said palaniraja had only 1/12th share therein. Hence, the plaintiffs have exclusive rights in the said undivided 1/12th share and hence the suit is not maintainable. (c) THE plaintiffs have brought out a self serving document styled as partition deed to defeat the rights of the defendants. THE defendants 1 to 6 have challenged the mutation of the revenue records and aggrieved by the order of Settlement Officer, Pondicherry, they have also filed an appeal before the Director of Survey, Land Records and Settlement, which was pending. THE certificate issued by the Village Administrative Officer regarding possession is not legally valid. (d) Since the plaintiffs did not have any exclusive title to the suit properties, they could not have conveyed the properties in favour of the said Krishnan, his wife and daughter under the sale deed dated 27. 1. 2000. THErefore the said document does not create any title in favour of the purchasers. THE suit for injunction without any division of the properties by metes and bounds is not maintainable. (e) THE defendants are co-owners and in joint possession of the suit properties and hence the plaintiffs are not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. Since the plaintiffs attempted to demolish the compound wall enclosing the suit properties, the defendants prevented the same. THE suit filed by them in O. S. No. 362 of 2000 against the plaintiffs and their brother Manohar has nothing to do with the adjudication of the claim of parties in the present suit. THE present suit without seeking any relief for declaration of title is legally unsustainable.