VENUGOPAL Vs. GANGADEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The brief facts of the case are as follows: - The plaintiffs submit that the first defendant and his brother Logakannan had filed partition suit in O.S.No.814 of 1978, on the file of Sub Court, Trichy against the first plaintiff and brothers and second defendant herein. Subsequently, the first plaintiff (deceased) filed an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court. Under the circumstances, the defendants and their sons compelled the first plaintiff and made him to withdraw the appeal from the High Court. As such, the trial Court's decree and judgment passed in O.S.No.814 of 1978 had become confirmed. After a few months, the defendants had taken the said property before partition and separate possession as per the trial Court's decree. The first defendant and Logakannan and another brother viz., Kannan compelled the first plaintiff and made him to file an application for final decree. Accordingly, the first plaintiff filed an application No.804 of 1992. The plaintiff, without disclosing his residential address to the first defendant, was living in a hidden place. Under the circumstances, the first defendant, with the help of his servants, traced about the whereabouts of the first plaintiff and tortured him. Besides, the first defendant had forcibly obtained signature of the first plaintiff in the blank papers, Government stamp papers, under threat. Under the circumstances, the second plaintiff herein had filed writ petition before the High Court to produce the first plaintiff before the High Court. Accordingly, when the first plaintiff appeared before the High Court, he had given statement that he is not willing to live along with the defendants. Therefore, he came along with Advocate Clerk Nallusamy.

(2.) The first plaintiff further stated that for more than 10 years, he was living outside and thereafter an arbitration was conducted in the year 1986 and then he came to his house at Valispuram. The first plaintiff and his wife and married daughter, Gangadevi, the second plaintiff herein lived at Valispuram and others were residing at the other village. The first plaintiff took his daughter, the third plaintiff herein and made her to live along with him. During this period, the first plaintiff had received a sum of Rs.1,000/ - towards rental income for 4 shops. The first defendant viz., Logakannan and Kannan compelled the first plaintiff to give his daughter for marriage with a person of unsound mind, with malafide intention. Under the circumstances, all the plaintiffs went to the Court for partition. Hence, the defendants disturbed the second and third plaintiffs to live without peace. On 26.09.1991, the second defendant, on the instruction of first defendant, had taken the ration card of the third plaintiff and locked her in the inner room. The very next day i.e., on 27.09.1991, the first defendant called the village people numbering 10 persons and in front of them abused the first plaintiff and his daughter, the third plaintiff herein and the household articles were thrown out from the house and the first and third plaintiffs were driven out from the house and both of them stayed at a charitable home at Srirangam. Thereafter, the second and third plaintiffs lived at the back portion of the house at Valispuram from 04.01.1991. The first plaintiff lived at first floor of house at Thuraiyur. On 12.12.1991, the first defendant and his brother Kannan came and attempted to attack him. Hence, the first plaintiff was forced to come and stay along with his daughter at the back portion of house at Valispuram. The very next day, the defendants had forcibly tried to obtain signature on blank papers from the plaintiff and his two daughters viz., the second and third plaintiffs. Fortunately, all of them escaped. Thereafter, the second plaintiff had filed writ petition before the High Court stating that the first plaintiff had been illegally detained by his sons. The same statement was given before the High Court in the Writ Petition (HCP).

(3.) The plaintiffs further submit that the defendants have obtained signature of Rangasamy Reddiar in the blank papers and the first defendant had written stating that the property had been sold in his favour against the sale consideration. Actually, the first plaintiff / Rangasamy Reddiar had not received any amount from the first defendant. As such, the created documents dated 08.07.1994 is not valid. Hence, the plaintiffs prayed for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs property.