RAMALINGAM Vs. THIRUVENKADAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated 19/9/2006 passed in A.S. No. 3 of 2006 by the Principal Sub Judge, Myiladuthurai reversing the judgment and Decree dated 14/9/2005 passed in O.S. No. 302 of 2004 by the District Munsif, Sirkali and thereby decreeing plaintiffs suit for Permanent Injunction. Unsuccessful defendant is the appellant.

(2.) Suit property relates to a vacant Punjai land measuring about 5 cents in S. No. 281/4B1 in Pudupattinam Village, Sirkali Taluk. The case of respondent/plaintiff is that the suit property measuring 5 cents was allotted to plaintiffs father Muthusamy Thevar and his brothers. After the death of his father, plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the same. Suit property is described as ABCD in the plaint plan, defendant is having property on the south of suit property and he is having brick kiln in his property and using the portion marked as EPGH in the plaint plan to take away the Bricks. Defendant demanded the plaintiff to sell the suit property namely the portion marked as ABCD. Since, plaintiff did not heed to his request, defendant threatened to disturb plaintiffs possession and hence plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant or his men from illegally encroaching into the suit property and interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in any manner.

(3.) Admitting that the suit property originally belonged to plaintiff's grand father Neelamegam, defendant filed written statement contending that Neelamegam had only one son by name Ponnian alias said Ponnusamy and the Ponnusamy inherited the suit property on the death of Neelamegam. According to defendant his wife Kalyani purchased the suit property under Exhibit B-l-sale deed on 24.6.1993 from Ponnusamy and his son Veerapandian and therefore, defendant and his wife are in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. It is averred that except Ponnusamy and his wife Kalyani, no one has got any right, title or interest in the suit property. It is further averred that the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party viz. Kalyani, wife of defendant.