S BAGYALAKSHMI Vs. R K SUBRAMANIAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these second appeals, challenge is made to the judgment and decree dated 22.09.2014 passed in A.S.Nos. 63, 67 and 68 of 2013 on the file of the Principal District court, Coimbatore, confirming/reversing/reversing the judgment and decree dated 30.04.2013 passed in O.S. No.270 of 2010 and O.S.No. 319 of 2012, on the file of Sub Court, Pollachi respectively.

(2.) The first appellant S.Bagyalakshmi and the appellants 2 to 5 in Second Appeal No. 202 of 2015 had laid the suit in O.S. No.270 of 2010 against the respondent R.K.Subramaniam for partition and permanent injunction. The first appellant S.Bagyalakshmi in Second Appeal No. 202 of 2015 is the wife and the appellants 2 to 5 in Second Appeal No. 202 of 2015 are the children of the respondent R.K.Subramaniam.

(3.) Seeking partition of 4/5 share to the plaintiffs 2 to 5 and also seeking the relief of permanent injunction, O.S. No.270 of 2010 had been laid by the abovesaid appellants against the respondent and in brief, according to their case, the suit property and other properties originally belonged to Kandasamy Gounder, the father of the respondent and the respondent and one Velusamy are his legal representatives and it is stated that after the demise of Kandasamy Gounder in 1986, the respondent had laid a suit in O.S.No.101 of 1986 for partition and in the said suit, the suit property had been alloted to the respondent's share in the final decree proceeding in I.A. No.193 of 1993 and accordingly the appellants and the respondent were enjoying the suit property in common and jointly and it is stated that the respondent thereafter, since 1997 onwards, started leading a wayward life and not looking after the family and it is only the first appellant who has been looking after the children and also maintaining the suit property and accordingly the revenue records had been mutated in the name of the first appellant in respect of the suit property and it is also stated that as Velusamy, son of Kandasamy Gounder interfered with the possession and enjoyment of the first appellant in respect of the suit property, she had also laid a police complaint against him and it is further stated that the respondent had not cared for the family and also not in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property for several years and it is only the appellants who are in the possession and enjoyment of the suit property. However, without any authority, inasmuch as the respondent attempted to dispossess and interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the appellants in respect of the suit property and as the appellants 2 to 5 are each entitled to 1/5 share in the suit property, accordingly it is stated that the appellants had been necessiated to lay the suit for the appropriate reliefs as above stated.