R SANTHA Vs. M B RAMAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second Appeal is filed against the judgment and decree dated 19.03.2018 made in A.S.No.29 of 2014 on the file of the Sub Court, Udhagamandalam, reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.06.2014 made in O.S.No.28 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Udhagamandalam.

(2.) The appellants are plaintiffs and respondents are defendants in O.S.No.28 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Udhagamandalam. The appellants filed the said suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents 2 and 3 from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the appellants until the respondents 2 and 3 worked out their remedy, if any by due process of law. According to the appellants, the suit property is ancestral joint family property of the appellants 2 and 3, their brother R.Prakash and first respondent. The first respondent is father of the appellants 2 and 3, first appellant is their mother and one R.Prakash is their another brother and they are in joint possession of the suit property along with the first respondent and cultivating the same. The revenue records are standing in the name of the first respondent. The appellants are paying kisth and chitta extract stands in the name of the first respondent. The appellants are joint owners along with the first respondent. While so, on 23.01.2000, when the appellants were cultivating the suit property, the respondents 2 & 3 and husband of the third respondent tried to dispossess the appellants from the suit property. The appellants resisted the same and again, the respondents 2 and 3 and husband of the third respondent tried to take possession of the suit land. They are very influential persons and appellants are not in a position to resist the illegal acts of the respondents 2 and 3. The respondents 2 and 3 have no right over the suit schedule property and if any sale executed in favour of either second respondent or third respondent, they have to take possession of the land alleged to have been purchased by them from and out of the suit property only under due process of law.

(3.) The respondents 1 and 2 remained exparte. The third respondent filed written statement and denied all the averments made in the plaint. She denied that the suit property is joint family property of appellants 2 and 3, their another brother Prakash and first respondent. She denied that the revenue records stood in the name of the first respondent and kisth has been paid by the appellants in the name of the first respondent. According to the third respondent, the suit property belongs to the first respondent as per the partition deed dated 15.04.1988 registered as document No.601/1988 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Ooty. The first respondent in order to discharge debts of the family borrowed for educational expenses of his minor children and also to improve the other properties, sold 50 cents of the suit property to the second respondent by sale deed dated 17.10.1988 registered as document No.768 of 1988. From that date onwards, the second respondent was in possession and enjoyment of the said property as absolute owner. The second respondent sold the property purchased by him to the third respondent by the deed of sale dated 18.06.1999 on the file of the Sub-Registrar, Ooty. From that date onwards, the third respondent is in possession and enjoyment of the said property. The name of the third respondent was mutated in the revenue records and she has paid necessary kisths for the same. The appellants and first respondent are aware of all the transactions and the exclusive possession of the third respondent in the property purchased by her. In view of the same, she denied the contention of the appellants that entire suit property belongs absolutely to them. The third respondent has also denied that the first respondent was drunkard and was not taking care of the family. The third respondent also denied that on 201.2000, the respondents 2 and 3 and her husband tried to dispossess the appellants. From the date of purchase by third respondent, she is in possession and enjoyment of the portion of the suit property as owner. She denied that the sale by the first respondent is not binding on the appellants. The suit for bare injunction without prayer for declaration is unsustainable in law. The suit for injunction against co-owner is misconceived and not maintainable and prayed for dismissal of the suit.