SESHAMMA Vs. N M HANEEF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit in O.S. No. 1155 of 1996 was filed by one Haneef praying for declaration of title, recovery of possession and also for mesne profits as against one Seshamma and her two sons who are the legal representatives of one Kuppusamy Naidu. The Trial Court granted the relief of declaration of title in favour of the said Haneef, but, dismissed the prayer for recovery of possession and mesne profits. Seshamma and her sons, the defendants in the said suit, did not choose to prefer any appeal aggrieved by the declaratory relief granted in favour of Haneef in the said suit. But, Haneef, having been aggrieved by the denial of the reliefs sought for by him for recovery of possession and also for mesne profits, took up the matter in appeal in A.S. No. 144 of 1999. The first appellate Court allowed the appeal filed by Haneef. Thus, it is found that the suit in O.S. No. 1155 of 1996 was decreed in entirety. Therefore, Seshamma and her two sons have preferred the present Second Appeal No. 46 of 2002.

(2.) Seshamma filed a suit in O.S. No. 2067 of 1993 praying for permanent injunction restraining Haneef from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property either by disconnecting electricity service connection or water tap connection installed in the suit property. The Trial Court, having accepted the plea of Haneef, dismissed the prayer for permanent injunction sought for by Seshamma. Aggrieved by the aforesaid verdict of the Trial Court, Seshamma filed an appeal in A.S. No. 205 of 2000. The first appellate Court dismissed the said appeal confirming the judgment of the Trial Court. Therefore, Seshamma has preferred S.A. No. 47 of 2002 aggrieved by the judgment of the Courts below.

(3.) The appellant Seshamma and her two sons have contended that the respondent N.M. Haneef, who was a member of Peelamedu Industrial Weavers Co-operative House Construction Society Limited, Coimbatore, entered into an agreement with G. Kuppusamy Naidu, the husband of Seshamma agreeing to sell the suit property to him. G. Kuppusamy Naidu was directed to pay the instalments due and payable to the said Society by Haneef. It is the case of Seshamma and her two sons that the entire amount due to the said Society was paid by the husband of Seshamma. Thereafter, the Society executed the sale deed in favour of Haneef with respect to the suit property by virtue of sale deed dated 6.4.1992. By virtue of the agreement for sale, Kuppusamy Naidu was inducted into possession of the property. On his demise, his legal heirs viz., Seshamma and her two sons are in possession and enjoyment of the same. As they have performed their part of the contract, they have invoked protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Alleging that Haneef is making an attempt to disconnect electricity and water tap connection, Seshamma filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain such an act of Haneef. Seshamma and her two sons resisted the suit for declaration of title, recovery of possession and mesne profits sought for by Haneef invoking the benevolent provision under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.