MANOHARAN Vs. JAYARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BEING aggrieved by the judgment in A.S.No.93 of 2005 reversing the judgment of the trial Court in O.S.No.99 of 2002 and dismissing appellant's/plaintiff's suit for permanent injunction, unsuccessful plaintiff has filed this Second Appeal. For convenience, parties are referred in their original rank in the suit.

(2.) SUIT property relates to 2.21 acres comprised in S.F.No.78/4B of Kainur Village. The case of the plaintiff is that suit property was the self acquired property of the defendant's father Ponnan and the said Ponnan sold the suit property to plaintiff's father Munusamy under Ex.A1 sale deed dated 21.10.1962. After purchase, the plaintiff's father was in possession and enjoyment of said extent of 2.21 acres. The plaintiff's father died intestate on 17.04.2001 leaving behind his wife Muthubackiammal, sons namely plaintiff and other sons and daughters. The plaintiff's mother Muthubackiammal also died intestate. Plaintiff and his brothers and sisters are in joint possession and enjoyment of the suit property. A portion of the suit land was converted into plots and the plaintiff being Power of Attorney of his brothers and sisters had also sold away 16 plots to third parties and the said third parties are in possession and enjoyment of the said plots purchased by them. The defendant who is son of vendor Ponnan has no right, title or interest over the suit property and while so the defendant is unlawfully attempting to interfere with the plaintiff's possession and enjoyment of the suit property and hence the suit for permanent injunction.

(3.) BEING aggrieved, the defendant preferred Appeal in A.S.No.93 of 2005. Observing that a portion of the suit property was divided into plots and 16 plots were sold to third parties, the lower Appellate Court held that without impleading those 16 persons, the suit as framed is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It was further held that without impleading those 16 purchasers, the plaintiff cannot claim to be in possession of the entire extent of the property and therefore the plaintiff would not be entitled to permanent injunction and the first Appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court and allowed the Appeal.