J.AJITH MOSES Vs. THAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above second appeals are directed against the common judgment and decree passed in the suits for permanent injunction filed by one Thaya, the plaintiff in O.S.No.167 of 2010 and Ajith Moses, the plaintiff in O.S.No.182 of 2010.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.167 of 2010 and the first defendant in O.S.No.182 of 2010 / Thaya is that the suit property belonged to her. As she had to borrow a sum of Rs. 1 lakh from the first defendant - Jothi Subramoniam, as a security for the same, the suit property was sold in favour of the said Jothi Subramoniam. It was agreed that as soon as the plaintiff repaid the amount with interest, the property would be reconveyed to the plaintiff, fixing the time limit as 10 years. Accordingly, the sale deed was executed by the plaintiff in favour of Jothi Subramoniam on 23.05.2002 as per Ex.A Even after the sale deed, the plaintiff continued to be in possession and he was paying the interest to the first defendant - Jothi Subramoniam upto June 2010. When the plaintiff approached the first defendant for reconveyance of the property, the first defendant asked him to come to the Sub-Registrar Office on 11.10.2010. However, the first defendant - Jothi Subramoniam never came as promised and did not execute the reconveyance. While so, the first defendant had executed a sale deed in favour of the second defendant viz., Ajith Moses on 13.10.2010. After the said sale, the first and second defendants colluded together and tried to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession. Hence, the suit for injunction was filed by her against the defendants. She had also prayed for dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.182 of 2010, based on the very same averments.

(3.) The case of the plaintiff in O.S.No.182 of 2010 and the second defendant in O.S.No.167 of 2010 / Ajith Moses is that he admitted the title of Thaya and the sale in favour of the third defendant therein viz., - Jothi Subramaniam. The said Ajith Moses purchased the suit property on 108.2010 from Jothi Subramoniam for a valid sale consideration. It is further stated by the said Ajith Moses that on the date of sale deed, the plaint schedule property was delivered to him and the same was under his exclusive possession and enjoyment. It is also stated that the vendor had delivered the title deeds and all other connected records to him. The plaintiff - Ajith Moses claimed to have effected mutation, obtained patta and has been paying the kisth to the revenue authorities. According to the plaintiff - Ajith Moses, as the defendants 1 and 2 viz., Thaya and her husband, who have no manner of right or title, attempted to trespass into the plaint schedule properties, the suit was filed for permanent injunction, restraining them from causing any disturbance to his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. He had also prayed for dismissal of the suit in O.S.No.167 of 2010 based on the very same averments.