LAWS(MAD)-2018-7-70

RAJENDRAN Vs. DEIVASSIGAMANI

Decided On July 03, 2018
RAJENDRAN Appellant
V/S
Deivassigamani Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this second appeal, challenge is made to the judgment and decree dated 29.03.2004, passed in A.S.78/2003, on the file of the Principal Subordinate Court, Villupuram, reversing the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2001, passed in O.S.No.532/95, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirukoilur.

(2.) The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

(3.) The plaintiff who has laid the suit and succeeded in the trial Court, but lost in the first appellate Court is the appellant in the second appeal. The suit has been laid for the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction. Briefly stated, according to the plaintiff's case the property located in Survey No.8/6, measuring 0.86 cents originally belonged to Vadivel kounder, the husband of the fourth defendant and according to the plaintiff on 29.01.88, Vadivel kounder had executed a settlement deed in respect of the abovesaid property in favour of the fourth defendant, his wife, granting the life enjoyment in respect of the abovesaid property in favour of the fourth defendant and the remainder interest in favour of his daughters, namely, Malliga, Indira and Amirtha and according to the plaintiff, the fourth defendant, on account of her old age and in order to avoid any dispute amongst her daughters, immediately after the execution of the abovesaid execution deed, divided the abovesaid property into three equal shares in favour of her daughters and accordingly, it is stated by the plaintiff that the three daughters had been enjoying their respective shares allotted to them in the abovesaid property and also the daughters had been maintaining the fourth defendant as such and accordingly, the fourth defendant had not disputed the claim of title of the daughters in respect of the abovesaid property at any point of time and it is stated that Malliga after retaining the two cents in the southern portion, according to the plaintiff, the two sisters namely Malliga and Indira had alienated the suit property in favour of the plaintiff by way of a sale deed dated 04.09.95 for a valid consideration and pursuant to the same, it is only the plaintiff, who has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Whileso, the defendants without any authority, attempted to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property and hence, according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to lay the suit for appropriate reliefs.