S. RAMANATHAN Vs. S. VALLIAMMAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The civil revision petitioners are the defendants in O.S.No.2320 of 2013 on the file of the VI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The respondents/plaintiffs filed the above suit for a declaration that the Power of Attorney dated 04.11.2011 as null and void and for a permanent injunction restraining the revision petitioners/defendants from alienating the suit A and B schedule properties. The defendants entered appearance in the said suit and filed a petition in I.A.No.7712 of 2013 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to reject the plaint, since the suit in O.S.No.2320 of 2013 is barred under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The respondents/plaintiffs filed I.A.No.6381 of 2012 under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for grant of an ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating or encumbering the suit properties pending disposal of the suit. The learned VI Assistant Judge vide his fair and decreetal order dated 24.06.2013, dismissed the petition in I.A.No.7712 of 2013 filed by the present revision petitioners/ defendants and allowed the petition in I.A.No.6381 of 2012 filed by the respondents/plaintiffs. Aggrieved over the same, the defendants in O.S.No.2320 of 2013 filed the present civil revision petition.

(2.) The first respondent and her late husband M.Sokkalingam were plaintiffs in O.S.No.4722 of 2012 on the file of VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. Late M.Sokkalingam was the absolute owner of the suit A and B schedule properties, as shown in the plaint schedule in O.S.No.2320 of 2013. The couple have three children, one son and two daughters. The properties were settled by way of an oral settlement on 01.11.2011 amongst the three children. The two daughters had received Rs.9crores each by way of two cheques each and had relinquished their right over the properties through a deed dated 02.11.2011 in favour of their brother Ramanathan, the first petitioner herein. The first revision petitioner admittedly got two properties as his share, which was settled to him by one E.J.Ayyappan, who is the 2nd revision petitioner herein, the power agent of late M.Sokkalingam,

(3.) Subsequent to all these events in 2011, O.S.No.4722 of 2012 was filed by the parents of the first revision petitioner before the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai seeking permanent injunction restraining the first revision petitioner herein from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in which they were living and also with the operation of a bank account in which, only two of them were the account holders and operators. In the said plaint, both of them had alleged that their son had obtained two properties settled in his favour by compulsion. In O.S.No.4722 of 2012, the first revision petitioner submitted to decree stating that he was not inclined to interfere with the property in which his parents were residing nor interested in fiddling with the bank account, they were operating. The said suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs.