S. VANASEKARAN Vs. THIRUGANASUNDARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The history of the case is as follows: - -

(2.) The plaintiff has further submitted that one Mr. Natrayan S/o Kandasamy, a native of Sivagiripatti Village, is usually involved in land disputes. The said Natrayan created false documents and claiming civil rights over the lands. The said Natrayan did not disclose the litigations and obtained a general power of attorney and the said Natrayan executed a sale deed to and in favour of the defendant namely S. Vanasekaran under a registered sale deed dated 27.06.1980. Originally, the Kumaravel Gounder demarcated the said lands by laying stones. The defendant, on his own accord and unlawfully, subdivided the said property. Such a sub division will not bind the plaintiff in anyway. Mr. Kumaravel Gounder expired. Hence, his son is enjoying the said property. Subsequently, on 01.03.1996, the plaintiff had purchased the schedule mentioned property and other properties. The same was under the occupation and enjoyment of the plaintiff. Knowing the rights of the parties of the said land, invalid sale deed was executed in favour of the defendant herein and a suit in O.S. No. 289 of 1996 has been filed against Executor, K.K. Kumaravel Gounder and one Rajendran, relative of the plaintiff, for grant of permanent injunction. The same is pending enquiry. In the said case, Interlocutory Application No. 659 of 1996 has been filed for appointment of Advocate Commissioner. The learned Advocate Commissioner measured the property and submitted his report along with rough sketch, wherein the schedule mentioned property is in the share of Kumaravel Gounder. As such, the defendants sale deed is not valid. The plaintiff has filed impleading petition in O.S. No. 289 of 1996 to implead herself as necessary party. Under the circumstances, the defendant restrained the plaintiff on 30.01.1998 from constructing building. The vacant land is under the care and maintenance of the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff has prayed for grant of permanent injunction restraining the defendant namely S. Vanasekaran and his men, agents etc. Hence, the suit has been filed.

(3.) The defendant has filed counter statement and denied the allegation of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has filed documents along with the plaint which are not sustainable under law. The plaintiff, is never enjoying the schedule mentioned property. As such, she is not having any right over the property. Besides, the sale deed dated 01.03.1996 is not valid as per law. The schedule mentioned property was originally belonging to Natrayan family. A portion of the property had been purchased by one Kalimuthu from Natrayan, from whom the defendant had purchased the said property under a sale deed dated 19.03.1981 another portion of the property had been purchased by Rajalakshmi Sethumani from Natrayan. After purchase of the said property, the said Rajalakshmi Sethumani had sold it to and in favour of Kalimuthu. The defendant had purchased the said property from Kalimuthu. After purchasing the said property, the defendant had demarcated the said property after laying stone pillars and enclosed it with iron fencing. The said property has been utilised to park tractor and trailer, erection of cow shed and for storage of manure. All the relevant records namely revenue records and municipality records pertaining to the said property have been mutated in the name of the defendant. The defendant had remitted taxes to the Government.