THIRUTHUVARAJ Vs. CHINNAKALAI @ PITCHAI MUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.04.2000, passed in A.S.No.217 of 1999 by the Principal District Judge, Dindigul, by reversing the judgment and decree dated 27.11.1998, passed in O.S.No.305 of 1997 on the file of the First Additional District Munsif, Dindigul, the present second appeal has been preferred. The plaintiffs are the appellants herein.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed in the trial court.

(3.) The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit property and other properties originally belong to one Therasammal, who is the mother of first and second plaintiffs and grandmother of 3rd and 4th plaintiffs. The properties were purchased from one Santhayammal and others as vacant site by Therasammal and she was in possession and enjoyment of the property, till she died 11 years ago. In respect of the same, a partition took place on 09.05.1990 among the children of the said Therasammal and they were in separate possession and enjoyment of the property, as per partition. The rough sketch of the suit property is produced as Ex.A.1. The portion shown in blue colour was given to the first plaintiff, yellow coloured portion was given to the second plaintiff. Green coloured portion to 3rd and 4th plaintiffs, while the red coloured portion was given to the first defendant. It is further stated that the first defendant has put up a house in the said property and living there. Apart from the said property, the first defendant is not having any other property in that area. Whileso, the defendants herein tried to occupy the suit property without any right on 15.06.1997. But the same was prevented by the plaintiffs. The second defendant, who has no interest in the suit property has joined hands with the first defendant and tried to take possession of the property. The defendants again made an attempt to occupy the property on 19.06.1997 and the same was prevented by the plaintiffs. The defendants have no right, title or interest in the suit property and they are trying to interfere with the plaintiffs' possession, who are the true owners of the property. Hence, the plaintiffs have sought for the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with their possession. The plaintiffs also produced the partition deed, entered into among themselves and also the land survey records obtained from Dindigul Municipality in respect of the suit property as Exs.A-2 and A-3 respectively, in support of their contentions. Thus, the plaintiffs filed the suit, seeking the relief of permanent injunction.