K.A.K. POOVANATHAN AND ORS. Vs. INDIRANI AND ORS.
LAWS(MAD)-2018-1-494
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on January 29,2018

K.A.K. Poovanathan And Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
Indirani And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

NISHA BANU,J. - (1.)This civil revision petition has been filed by the plaintiffs challenging the judgment passed in C.M.A. No. 5 of 2016 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Sivagangai, dated 17.06.2016, in and by which the order passed by the learned Additional District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai, in I.A. No. 110 of 2014 was confirmed.
(2.)The plaintiffs/revision petitioners filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the defendants/respondents, seeking a declaration that the sale deeds standing in the name of the defendants are sham and nominal and that it is not binding on the plaintiffs. 2. 1. The relief of injunction is on three fold i.e., (i) seeking direction to the defendants not to interfere with the possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs; (ii) not to create any encumbrance over the suit property; and (iii) not to alter the physical features of the suit property.
(3.)Brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are as follows:
(a) According to the plaintiffs/revision petitioners, the suit property originally belonged to the plaintiffs' paternal great-grand-mother viz., Vairamuthammal and she had been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the property, which is covered in S. No. 34/1, in an extent of 6 acres 52 cents, located at Thiruppuavanam Puthur Village.

(b) It is the claim of the plaintiffs that they are in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said Vairamuthammal's entire properties, which includes the suit property also.

(c) The suit village, inclinding the suit property, was taken over by the Government under Tamil Nadu Estate Abolition Act, 26 of 1948 and later on, patta had been issued in the name of the Kartha of the family in Patta No. 94. The property tax had been paid by the first and third plaintiffs' grandfather-Kalimuthu Pillai.

(d) Exercising the rights over the property, the father of the plaintiffs 1 and 3 and husband of the 2nd plaintiff, viz., Kaliappa Pillai executed a registered urufructuary mortgage in favour of one Arumugam Pillai in respect of the suit property. In 1964, there was a suit between the father of the first and third plaintiffs and one Gurunathan Servai, who is the relative of the 4th defendant. During 2002, the father of the first and second plaintiffs filed a suit for redemption in O.S. No. 39 of 2002 and the said suit had been decreed in the year 2004 and the plaintiffs have filed execution petition in E.P. No. 23 of 2005 in respect of the suit property i.e. in respect of S. No. 34/1 and S. No. 34/3A. UDR patta was issued in favour of Thiru. Kalimuthu Pillai and Meenakshiammal (daughter of Kalimuthu pillai).

(e) In 2012, the 4th defendant had executed a registered sale deed in favour of defendants 10 to 35, of which it is claimed that the 4th defendant had no right. That was driving factor for the plaintiffs to file this suit for declaration and injunction.

(f) The contention of the 4th defendant is that the plaintiffs father had obtained a fraud lent decree in O.S. No. 39 of 2002, and therefore, that decree would confer any title in favour of the plaintiffs. Excepting the 4th defendant, other defendants remained ex parte in the suit in O.S. No. 60 of 2014.

(g) The trial Court, after consideration of all the materials placed before it, has chosen to dismiss the application for injunction, which was also confirmed by the first appellate Court.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.