VIJAYAKUMAR Vs. DINESHKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in the suits are the appellants in the above appeals. The plaintiffs had filed the suit for bare injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing their peaceful possession.

(2.) The case of the plaintiffs is that the suit properties originally belonged to one Periyanayagam. He had executed a registered Will in favour of one Rukmani Ammal. On the death of Periyanayagam, Rukmani Ammal became the absolute owner by virtue of the Will. The total extent covered by the said Will was 9440 sq. ft. The said Rukmani Ammal had mortgaged the suit properties with one Anthonisamy. As she had failed to discharge the mortgage, a suit in O.S.No.1844 of 1981 was filed and the properties were brought in public auction in E.P.No.446 of 1985. The vendor of the plaintiffs viz., one Loganathan had purchased the same in Court auction on 09.03.1988. The sale was also confirmed on 206.1988.

(3.) The defendants resisted the suit by raising various contentions. The fact that the suit properties were owned by Periyanayagam and the same was given in bequest in favour of Rukmani Ammal, who in turn mortgaged the same and allowed the same to be brought to sale, were all admitted by the defendants. According to the defendants, the extent covered under the decree is different from what was got by the said Rukmani Ammal under the Will. It is further stated that the total extent of the property is 9,440 sq. ft., whereas what was brought to sale was only 7534 sq. ft. There is a balance extent. When the property was brought to sale, the specific boundaries were not shown and the delivery was only on paper and the description on the delivery athatchi are different. Therefore, it is stated by the defendants that the said decree in O.S.No. 1844 of 1981 is not binding on them and they are the absolute owners of the suit properties.