S MOHAN Vs. T C NAGALINGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal has been filed, against the judgment and decree, dated 28.12.2006, passed in A.S.No.199 of 2006, on the file of the VI Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.11578 of 1996, dated 16.12.2005, on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience the parties in the appeal are referred to as they have been arrayed in the suit in O.S.No.11578 of 1996.

(3.) THE plaintiffs are not the owners and they are not enjoying the property in their own right. THEy are permitted to occupy the building since the first defendant was a resident of Bombay. THErefore, he had allowed his brothers and sisters to occupy the suit property and they are only permissive occupants of the suit property and they have no right, title or interest in it. THE claim by the plaintiffs that they came to know about he settlement deed only in the year 1996 is a blatant lie. THE allegation that late T.Chockalingam was not healthy and that he did not execute the settlement deed with full knowledge of his action is incorrect. It is only the first defendant who has the right over the suit property. Since the plaintiffs have no right over the property they cannot maintain the present suit for partition. Since the suit is not properly valued and the appropriate Court fee was not paid and since the suit is bereft of any material particulars and also due to the reason that there is no cause of action, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.