M. SAHUL HAMEED Vs. SIRATHU NISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE averments in the plaint is as follows: The suit property was originally belonged to first plaintiff's husband and second and third plaintiff's father Chinda Madar. He purchased the same under a registered sale deed from one Mohammad Abdul Khader on 1.12.1980. From the date of purchase, they are in possession and enjoyment of the same. Chinda Madar died in the year 1989, leaving behind these plaintiffs as his legal heirs. After the death of Chinda Madar, plaintiffs as heirs of Chinda Madar are in possession and enjoyment of the property. They are paying the kist to the suit properties. The scheduled property is a vacant site. The plaintiffs constructed in a portion of the scheduled property upto basement level, after spending nearly Rs. 10,000/ - and put up a small tiled shed for storing construction materials. Since, the plaintiffs are females, taking advantage of that the defendants are trying to disturb the possession and enjoyment of the suit property and also to grab the property. Now, with the help of the second and third defendants, the first defendant attempted to disturb the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs. On 15.7.1994, even the plaintiffs are in the scheduled property, the defendants illegally prevented them from enjoying the suit property. Hence, the plaintiffs have come forward with a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men and others from interfering in any manner in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. During the pendency of the suit, third plaintiff died. His heirs are already on record.

(2.) GIST and essence of the written statement filed by the first defendant is as follows: Total extent of 1 acre 31 cents is originally belonging to one Abdul Khader Maraikayar. Including the defendants, nearly six persons purchased the properties from Abdul Khader Maraikayar in different times. These defendants purchased 32 to 34 cents under a registered sale deed on 14.11.1985 and 96 cents on 14.2.1985. Since the other owners of the property has not been impleaded, the suit is bad for non -joinder of necessary parties. The first defendant has paid kist, he also constructed a house and for which Door Number. 934/1 has been assigned and property has been assessed by Municipality. It is false to contend that the Chinda Madar purchased the property from Abdul Khader Maraikayar on 1.12.1980. They have not made any construction in the T.S.No. 434/01. No cause of action for the suit. Hence, the first defendant prays for the dismissal of the suit.

(3.) THE gist and essence of additional written statement filed by the first defendant is as follows: The plaintiffs failed to prove that which portion of the property, Chinda Madar had purchased from Abdul Khader Marakayar correct boundaries for the suit properties has not been given. They have not mentioned the correct boundaries of 35 cents and only mentioned the boundaries of 1 acre 31 cents as the boundaries for 35 cents of suit property. The properties purchased by the first defendant has situated on the southern side of the property purchased by the plaintiffs father. The first defendant's property has been sub -divided as 934/1B on the north of this 934/1B S.No. 133. The original owner Abdul Khader after alienating the property on 14.11.1986, died without heir and hence the first defendant is in possession and enjoyment of 34 cents of the suit property. So, he prescribed title for adverse possession for 34 cents. He also constructed a building and the door number is given 5B by the Tirunelveli Municpality. He also paid the property tax. He is doing business there. He also paid the sales tax. That building has been dilapidated during rain. Now, in the Door Number 5 -B there is only a foundation. After the death of plaintiffs' father, the plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment. So they are not entitled for an order of injunction. The other property owned by Thangamiyan Ravuthar, Salma Mohammed are the necessary parties to the suit. Since, they were not impleaded, the suit is barred for non -joinder of necessary parties. This first defendant has filed O.S.No. 273/95, on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Court, Tirunelveli and 16 cents has been brought to the Court auction and that has been purchased by one Jakir Hussain, S/o. Kanimeeran. The plaintiff does not know where the suit property is situated. They file a false and vexatious suit against the first defendant. The suit is not maintainable and power agent has no right to file the suit. Hence, he pray for the dismissal of the suit.