N.SIDDHARTH Vs. JAYALAKSHMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The revision has been filed by the plaintiff. The Interlocutory Application seeking an interim injunction in I.A. No.2 of 2022 was granted in favour of the plaintiff by the Trial Court. However, the said order came to be reversed in Appeal in C.M.A. No.23 of 2022 dtd. 3/1/2024 on the file of the II Additional Sub Court, Coimbatore. Aggrieved by the reversing findings, the plaintiff is before this Court.

(2.) I have heard Mr.S.Parthasarathy, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.P.Dinesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.N.Manoharan for Mr.N.Ponraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel would contend that the plaintiff has filed the suit for the relief of a permanent injunction, to restrain the defendants from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. According to the plaintiff, the suit property belongs to one Krishnasamy Gouder who had four sons. The property was divided under a family partition, a registered partition dtd. 31/12/1959 in Doc. No.613 of 1960. The plaintiff's grandfather Venkatachala Gouder was one of the parties to the said partition deed and schedule C to the said partition deed was allotted to him. Subsequent to his death, his legal heirs succeeded to the C Schedule property to the 1959 partition deed and the father of the plaintiff, Nagarajan and other legal heirs viz., Raveendran and Bakiyalakshmi have subsequently, further partitioned the properties of Venkatachala Gouder on 9/10/1987, under which A schedule property was allotted to Bakiyalakshmi and B schedule was allotted to the plaintiff's father Nagarajan and Ravindran jointly. Subsequently, the plaintiff's father Nagarajan and Raveendran entered into a partition deed on 17/11/2021 in Doc. No.9712 of 2021 and Schedule A property thereunder was allotted to the plaintiff's father.