VASANTHA Vs. RATHINASAMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs in O. S. No. 455 of 1986, Sub Court, Thiruchirapalli, against an order dismissing their application for injunction restraining defendants 2 to 6 from described in schedules'a'to'd'in the plaint.

(2.) THE appellants put forward the following case in the plaint: THE suit properties described in schedules'a'to 'e'of the plaint, excepting a few items, belonged ancestrally to one Sangalimuthu Kalathil Vendrar who died on 8-5-1986. He had two wives. THE junior wife died in 1964 and the senior died in 1984. THE first plaintiff is the only daughter through the second wife while plaintiffs 2 and 3 are the daughters of his predeceased daughter through the first wife. THE 1st defendant is another daughter through the first wife. THE plaintiffs and the first defendant are the only heirs of the deceased propositus. THE plaintiffs are entitled to 2/3rd share and the 1st defendant is entitled to the remaining l/3rd share. THEy are in joint possession of all the properties. Defendants 2 to 6 are the children of one Diraviyam Ammal belonging to Koothadi caste who was a mistress of Sangilimuthu, but not exclusively kept. THEy are falsely claiming rights in the suit properties and are threatening to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs. Even since the death of Sangilimuthu, the plaintiffs have been demanding of the first defendant to effect an amicable division who is taking up an evasive attitude. Sangilimuthu seems to have executed some sham and nominal documents with reference to E schedule properties which continued to be in his possession till his death. Sangilimuthu was personally cultivating the'a'schedule nanja lands till his death. Hence, a preliminary decree for partition into three equal shares and allotment of two such shares to the plaintiffs with a direction to the first defendant to account for the income realised by her subsequent to suit should be passed in addition to a decree restraining the defendant 2 to 6 from interfering with the plaintiff's and 1st defendant's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties.

(3.) PER contra, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the documents relied on by the appellants have not been proved to relate to the mother of the respondents and that authentic and undisputed documents including registered deeds to which Sangilimuthu was himself a party prove their claim as the legitimate children of Sangilimuthu and that the respondents had been in possession and enjoyment along with Sangilimuthu even during his lifetime. Learned counsel contended that the appellants have not proved their possession on the date of suit and they are not entitled to injunction during the pendency of the suit.