PRAKASAM Vs. SINGARAVEL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in O.S. No.241 of 2007 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Ariyalur is the appellant herein. The respondents are the defendants in the suit. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The said suit was dismissed by decree and judgment dated 24.07.2009. As against the same, the appellant filed an appeal in A.S. No.43 of 2013 before the learned Principal District Judge, Ariyalur. The same was dismissed by the learned Principal District Judge, Ariyalur by decree and judgment dated 31.07.2014. As against the same, the appellant is before this Court with this Second Appeal.

(2.) THE Second Appeal has come up before me for admission. I have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and I have also perused the records carefully.

(3.) THE 4th defendant filed a written statement wherein he has stated that it is true that Ramasamy was the absolute owner of the suit property. It is also true that the Will was executed by Ramasamy in favour of Sellammal on 15.02.1954. But under the Will, according to the 4th defendant, only life estate was given to her and as per the terms of the Will, after the demise of Sellammal, Ramasamy's two sons, namely, the 1st defendant and the another son by name Durairaj, who are his legal heirs, should inherit the property as absolute owners. The defendants 2 to 4 are sons of Durairaj. Thus, according to the 4th defendant, the plaintiff has got no right whatsoever over the suit property because under the settlement deed, namely, Ex.A.1, no title would have passed on to the plaintiff. Further, the plaintiff could not maintain the suit against these defendants.