PAPPAMMAL Vs. MUTHURAMAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant in the original suit is the appellant in the second appeal. The suit in O.S. No.908/1990 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Kallakurichi came to be filed by the respondent Muthuraman represented by his next friend and mother Muthulakshmi while he was a minor, for a declaration of his title over the suit property, for a permanent injunction restraining Pappammal and Ammasi Reddy, the defendants therein, from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property and for cost.

(2.) The said prayers were made based on the plaint averments that the suit properties originally belonged to the forefathers of the respondent/plaintiff and in a registered Partition Deed dated 10.05.1983 effected between his father Muthusamy (father of the plaintiff) and his brothers Rangasamy and Arunachala Reddiar, the suit property came to be allotted to the said Muthusamy, father of the respondent/plaintiff; that by virtue of a registered Settlement Deed executed by the said Muthusamy on 05.09.1983, the respondent/plaintiff became entitled to the suit property; that the defendants, who had got no right or title over the suit property, were trying to grab the same out of enmity denying the title of the plaintiff and that thereby they forced the respondent/plaintiff to approach the court with the suit.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendants based on the written statement of Pappammal, the first defendant, which was adopted by Ammasi Reddy, the second defendant. It was contended therein that the Partition Deed dated 10.05.1983 and the Settlement Deed dated 05.09.1983 were created for the purpose of seeking claim of title to the suit property; that in a partition that was effected on 05.03.1967 2.69 acres comprised in S.No.293/2 fell to the share of Muthu Reddiar, the husband of the first defendant, that the said Muthu Reddiar deserted his wife, namely the first defendant and her children, pursuant to which, the first defendant filed a suit in O.S. No.283/1973 and obtained a decree for the maintenance of herself and her children; that in the said property measuring 2.69 acres, half share belonged to minor Periyasamy, son of the first defendant as coparcener and that the remaining half share, which belonged to Muthu Reddiar was purchased by her on 17.03.1976 in the court auction held in execution of the decree for maintenance obtained by her. It was also contended that, only in order to defeat the claim of the first defendant made in her maintenance suit, the documents relied on by the plaintiff came to be created. Based on the above said pleadings, the defendants had prayed for the dismissal of the suit.