G PADHMANABHAN Vs. RAMA VENKATACHALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE S. A. No. 55/1997 has been preferred against the decree and judgment in the cross appeal in A. S. No. 185/95 on the file of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. S. A. No. 56/1997 has been preferred against the decree and judgment in A. S. No. 185/95 on the file of the II Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The plaintiff, who has succeeded in the suit but lost the same before the first appellate Court, is the appellant in S. A. No. 56/1997. The cross-objector viz. the appellant in S. A. No. 56/1997, is the appellant in S. A. No. 55/1997.

(2.) THE short facts in the plaint relevant for the purpose of deciding this these appeals sans irrelevant particulars are as follows: the fourth defendant is the wife of the plaintiff. Third defendant is the father-in-law of the plaintiff. The first defendant and third defendant have married the sisters of the plaintiff viz. Smt. Bhagyalakshmi and Smt. Rajeswari. The second defendant is the son of the first defendant. The fourth defendant is the daughter of the third defendant. Due to the difference of opinion the plaintiff and D4 are living separately. The 1st and 3rd defendants are giving evil advice to the 4th defendant. Due to their evil advice the D4 began to behave rudely and high-handedly against the plaintiff. At one stage D4 had gone to the level of throwing acid on the plaintiff. The plaintiff narrowly escaped from that attempt with minor injuries. The fourth defendant preferred a false complaint against the plaintiff in All Women Police Station, Thousand lights, Chennai. The plaintiff was released by the orders of the High Court, Chennai. The fourth defendant executed a registered deed of settlement dated 11. 03. 1985 transferring all her right, title and interest in the property bearing Door No. 16, Jayalkshmi Puram III Street, Nungambakkam, Chennai-34, infavour of the plaintiff absolutely. The fourth defendant got the property through the Will executed by the father of the plaintiff, since he is related to D4 as a grand-father. Even at that time, it was understood, that the property shall vest with the plaintiff alone. The settlement deed is irrevocable and the plaintiff took possession of the property, made considerable improvements. The plaintiff is in possession and enjoyment of the property. The plaintiff is inducting tenants, collecting rents and carrying out repairs and paying taxes. The plaintiff is also in possession of a portion of the property. Only with a view to cause wrongful loss to the plaintiff and annoy the plaintiff, the defendants are instigating the 4th defendant to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of his property. The defendants are colluding and threatening to use force against the tenants of the plaintiff in respect of the suit property. The 4th defendant has fallen a prey to the evil designs of the other defendants and during the absence of the plaintiff, she is scaring the plaintiff's tenants, threatening to cause bodily injury. The defendants have no manner of right over the suit property. The defendants are also intimidating the plaintiff. Hence the suit for perpetual injunction in respect of the suit property.

(3.) THE fourth defendant alone has filed a written statement with the following averments: