SELVAMANI Vs. PANNEERSELVAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is preferred by the plaintiff, who was successful before the trial Court in a suit for bare injunction, but suffered a decree dismissing the suit by the first appellate Court. Parties would be referred to by their rank before the trial Court.

(2.) ***

(3.) The defendants in their written statement had contended that their father Govindasamy Padayachi had held the properties in his capacity as the manager of the property, earned income out of it, and purchased the properties covered under Ext.A5 and Ext.A6, sale deeds, in the name of their mother Panchavarnathammal, that her mother is a nominal name lender, therefore, their mother did not have the right to execute Ext.A1, sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. They also disputed that Panchavarnathammal had not enjoyed any of Saminatha Padayachi's property. It was further pleaded that on 20.11.1971 under Ext.B1, Swaminatha Padayachi and Govindasamy Padayachi along with the defendants who were then minors, had partitioned the entire family properties, wherein Swaminatha Padayachi was allotted the properties described in A-schedule to the partition and Govindasamy Padayachi was allotted the B-schedule property therein. On the demise of Swaminatha Padayachi in 1975, Govindasamy Padayachi succeeded to the estate of Swaminatha Padayachi as well. While so, in 1981 Govindasamy Padayachi had died intestate, whereupon his heirs namely his widow Panchavarnathammal and their children were jointly enjoying the suit property. Therefore, Panchavarnathammal did not have any exclusive right over any of the suit properties. The plaintiff was given marriage in 1981 and the plaintiff is permitted to be in occupation of a portion of the property and was allowed to put up residential building therein.