LAWS(MAD)-2018-8-513

PONNNAPPAN Vs. BALAKRISHNAN

Decided On August 30, 2018
Ponnnappan Appellant
V/S
BALAKRISHNAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in O.S.No.554 of 1996 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Padmanabhapuram, is the appellant herein. The said suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 27.06.2000. As against the same, A.S.No.74 of 2000 had been filed by the present appellant, which came up for consideration before the Subordinate Court, Padmanabhapuram. The said Court, by judgment and decree dated 06.08.2001, confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

(2.) O.S.No.554 of 1996 had been filed by Ponnappan, S/o.Thangaiya Nadar. The first defendant, Balakrishnan was his brother. The property given in schedule 'D' of the plaint originally belonged to the Grandfather, Gnanamani. He died in 197 Thereafter, the plaintiff claimed that the 'D' schedule property devolved on to him and to the first defendant in two equal parts. In 1985, the plaintiff and the first defendant divided all other properties, but did not divide the house. The other properties given in 'A' schedule was allotted to the plaintiff and given in 'B' schedule was allotted to the first defendant. The first defendant had sold a portion of 'B' schedule property. He also sold about 14 cents to the defendants 2 and 3. There were disputes with respect to the pathway. The plaintiff claimed that the first defendant had demanded that fresh pathway must be constructed. The first defendant also threatened to interfere with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff's share.

(3.) The plaintiff, thereafter, filed the suit seeking declaration of title with respect to the 'A' schedule property and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his peaceful possession. In the alternate, it has also prayed he should be allotted 1/2 share in the 'D' schedule property. Since the fourth defendant had purchased a portion of the 'D' schedule property, she was impleaded as defendant in the suit. The plaintiff also sought damages from the first defendant to a sum of Rs. 5,000/-.