R.SALAMMAL Vs. S.TAMILVENTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant/1st respondent/plaintiff was successful before the trial court and lost her case before the lower appellate court in the appeal in A.S.No.19/2013 filed by the 1st respondent/Appellant/3rd defendant. Hence, this Second Appeal.

(2.) This court, for the sake of convenience, has adopted the nomenclature/array of parties as adopted by the trial court.

(3.) The plaint averments read among the things shows that the suit schedule property belongs to the plaintiff and her brother first defendant, Andiappan. They were jointly owning and enjoying it and the revenue records relating to the suit schedule mentioned property stands in the name of the first defendant and as the Karta, he is looking after and administering the said property. The first defendant, taking advantage of the fact that the plaintiff is a woman, is taking steps to alter the revenue records and also trying to alienate the property. The plaintiff would further submit that her father namely, S.Vediappa Gounder, while he was alive had partitioned some property in favour of the second defendant, 21 years back and the second defendant is not entitled to claim any right over the said property. The plaintiff in this regard, has also sent a legal notice dtd. 30/6/2011 (Ex.A1) calling upon defendants 1 and 3 to partition suit schedule property and give separate possession of the property and despite receipt of acknowledgment, they did not send any reply and all of them joining together are trying to alienate the property and due to timely intervention, it was prevented by the plaintiff in the suit. Further the defendants 4 and 5 are trying to draw water from well in the suit schedule property. Therefore, they should be injuncted. Hence, the plaintiff had filed the said suit for partition, for separate possession as well as for permanent injunction restraining the defendants 4 and 5 from drawing water from the well.