PONNUSWAMY GOUNDAR; PERIASWAMY, MADHU Vs. PAPPATHI, MUTHUSWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 1.12.1993, made in A.S. No. 173 of 1993, on the file of the District Court, Salem, confirming the judgment and decree, dated 5.7.1993, made in O.S. No. 672 of 1986, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Salem.

(2.) The defendants 1, 4 and 5 in the suit, in O.S. No. 672 of 1986, are the appellants in the present second appeal. The plaintiff had filed the suit, in O.S. No. 672 of 1986, on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Salem, praying for a declaration of title and for permanent injunction, in respect of the suit property.

(3.) The plaintiff had stated that he had got the suit property by way of a sale deed, dated 29.12.1951. The suit property had been conveyed to the plaintiff by the first defendant and his father on their behalf and on behalf of the third defendant who was a minor at that time. The fourth and the fifth defendants had not been born on the said date. From the date of the sale the suit property had been in the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has been in enjoyment of the suit property by paying the land tax and the other dues to the Government. Apart from the plaintiff no other person has any right in the suit property. The patta and the chitta copies have been filed along with the suit. The first defendant is the elder brother of the plaintiff and the second defendant is his wife. Defendants 3 to 5 are the sons of the first and the second defendants. The defendants are having more than 10 acres of land, having sufficient water supply. The defendants have been threatening the plaintiff and her husband, demanding that they should be permitted to carry on cultivation in the suit property as well. When the plaintiff and her sons were wanting to put up a thatched shed in the suit property, the defendants, along with some rowdy elements had entered the suit property and prevented them from putting up the thatched shed. The plaintiff had also lodged a police complaint in this regard. Unless the defendants are prevented from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful enjoyment of the suit property, by way of an injunction issued by the Court, it would cause irreparable loss to the plaintiff.