LAWS(MAD)-2015-2-385

LINGAMOORTHY AND ORS. Vs. V. GANESAN AND ORS.

Decided On February 27, 2015
Lingamoorthy And Ors. Appellant
V/S
V. Ganesan And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants 1 to 4 in S.A. No.1083 of 2012 are the plaintiffs 5 to 8 in O.S. No.631 of 2004 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Ambattur. The said suit was transferred to the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee and re -numbered as O.S. No.175 of 2008. The first respondent herein is the sole defendant in the said suit. The respondents 2 to 5 herein are the plaintiffs 1 to 4 in the suit. The said suit was filed for permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from in any manner interfering with the alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. The trial Court by decree and judgement dated 28.10.2009 decreed the suit as prayed for. As against the same, the first respondent herein filed an appeal in A.S. No.65 of 2009 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Tiruvallore, Poonamallee. The First Appellate Court allowed the appeal and set aside the decree and judgement of the trial Court. As against the same, the appellants herein have come up with S.A. No.1083 of 2012.

(2.) THE first respondent in S.A. No.1082 of 2012 is the plaintiff in O.S. No.123 of 2007 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee. The appellants 1 to 4 herein are the defendants 8 to 11 in the suit. The other respondents are the other defendants in the suit. This suit was filed for declaration declaring that the settlement deed dated 05.11.2004 under Document No. 3722/4, Sub Registrar Office, Anna Nagar, Chennai, executed by the fifth defendant in favour of the defendants 1 to 4 is illegal, unlawful, null and void and for further declaration that the sale deed dated 01.02.2007 under Document No. 393 of 2007, Sub Registrar Office, Villivakkam, executed by the defendants 6 and 7 as the Power Agents of the defendants 1 to 4 in favour of the defendants 8 to 11 is illegal, unlawful and liable to be cancelled and for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from in any manner interfering with the alleged peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. The trial Court dismissed the suit by decree and judgement dated 28.10.2009. As against the same, the first respondent herein filed an appeal in A.S. No. 64 of 2009 on the file of the learned III Additional District Judge, Poonamallee. The First Appellate Court by decree and judgement dated 31.07.2012, allowed the appeal and set aside the decree and judgement of the trial Court and decreed the suit as prayed for. As against the same, the appellants 1 to 4 have come up with S.A. No.1082 of 2012.

(3.) SIMILARLY , in S.A. No.1083 of 2012 also except Mr. V. Ganesan, first respondent, there is no representation for the other respondents. It is brought to my notice that the other respondents have been duly served and hence, they are set ex -parte in this second appeal. However, in both the second appeals, the contesting respondent is only the first respondent.