KANNAN Vs. GOVINDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendants in O.S. No. 439 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi, are the Appellants herein.

(2.) O.S. No. 439 of 2009 had been filed by the plaintiffs, namely, Govindan and his wife Alagammal against three defendants namely, Kannan, his wife Selvi and his mother Nallammal, seeking a judgment and decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs in the suit schedule property namely, agricultural land in S. No. 216/1 measuring 0.20 cents and S. No. 216/3 measuring 0.15 1/2 cents and S. No. 360/2B measuring 0.60 cents in Madhavacherry Village, Kallakurichi. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the 2nd item of suit property namely, the lands at S. No. 216/3 originally belonged to Subramaniam S/o. Natesa Mudaliyar, who had been allotted to the said land by a partition. It was stated that the said Subramaniam, by an oral sale about 20 years prior to the institution of the suit conveyed the said land to one Rangasamy S/o. Maruthamuthu Muthaliyar. It was stated that Rangasamy then dug a well in the 1st item of suit property. It was then stated that Rangasamy had conveyed the 1st and 2nd items of suit property by an oral sale about 10 years prior to the institution of the suit to the 2nd plaintiff, Azhagammal.

(3.) It was further stated that the plaintiffs were in possession of the said 1st and 2nd items of suit property. It was also stated that since the 1st and 2nd items of suit property were adjacent to the 3rd item of suit property namely, lands in S. No. 360/2B which was admitted even in the plaint to be a Government poromboke land, the plaintiffs took possession of the same and continued to enjoy the same. It was stated that the 1st item of suit property was an odai poromboke land. It was also stated that the 2nd item of suit property namely, S. No. 216/3 was the subject matter of a compromise decree in an earlier suit in O.S. No. 707 of 1998 on the file of District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi. It was stated that the plaintiffs continued to be in possession. It was also stated that the defendants have laid a rival claim over the lands and also produced documents relating to possession and enjoyment. It was under these circumstances, that the suit had been filed seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with peaceful possession.