Judgment:-Being aggrieved by the reversal judgment and decree in A.S.No.178 of 2003, dated 12.08.2004, on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Mayiladuthurai, the plaintiffs, seeking for a permanent injunction, have filed the present second appeal.

2. According to the plaintiffs, the suit property belongs to them. Earlier, the property allotted to the defendants' father, Thiru.Govidaraj, as per the family partition, by way of registered release deed, dated 15.11.1954, was given to the grandfather of plaintiffs 2 and 3. Since 1954, the suit property was in possession and enjoyment of the plaintiffs' family. On 09.01.2000, when the defendants have attempted to interfere, a complaint was given to Kuthalam Police Station. No action was taken. The defendants attempted to damage the concrete posts on the either side of the suit property and further attempted to remove the barbed fence. Hence, the plaintiffs were constrained to file a suit for permanent injunction.

3. The 1st defendant denied the contention that there was an attempt to encroach upon the suit properties. According to him, the properties on the eastern side of the suit schedule property, were allotted to the defendants' father, Thiru.Govindaraj and that the same were enjoyed in common by the defendants along with him. Pursuant to a family dispute on 12.05.1995, a compromise was arrived at between the parties, by which, the properties were partitioned between Thiru.Govindarajan and his brother, Thiru.Varadharajan. The first defendant has further contended that since 12.05.1995, half of the properties on the western side, were allotted to Govindaraj and that he was in possession and that enjoyment of the same.

4. The 2nd defendant in his written statement has denied the contention that the suit properties exclusively belong to the plaintiffs. He has further submitted that Thiru.Iyyaru Vanniar and Thiru.Manickam are the two sons of Thiru.Muthupadaiyachi. The 1st plaintiff is the wife of Thiru.Iyyaru Vanniar. Plaintiffs 2 and 3 are her sons. His brother Thiru.Manickam had wife and sons. There was no partition agreement between Thiru.Iyyaru and Thiru.Manickam. As the properties were joint family properties, the contention of the plaintiffs that the suit properties exclusively belong to them is not correct. The head of the family, Thiru.Muthupavadai, along with other sharers were maintaining the properties and when Thiru.Govindaraj was aged 20 years, the defendants' grandfather Thiru.Kumarasamy died and thereafter, he was under the supervision of his maternal uncle Thiru.Muthupavadai and that the properties in enjoyment were common. On 14.11.1954, Thiru.Govindaraj has executed a registered partition in favour of Thiru.Muthupavadai and since then, he was in possession and enjoyment of the properties till his death. Either Thiru.Muthupavadai or his heirs are entitled to any right or title over the properties partitioned in favour of Thiru.Govindaraj. His son Thiru.Kaliyamurthi has projected a case, as if, he has right over the property along with the plaintiffs. The 2nd defendant has further contended that certain portions of the joint family properties have already been given to Thiru.Kaliyamurthi, by his father Thiru.Govindaraj and that he has also executed a will bequeathing certain properties to the 2nd defendant. As the said Thiru.Govindaraj had not given any property, the 1st defendant out of anger, joining hands with the plaintiffs 1 and 2, have claimed right over the property belonging to the 2nd defendant and attempted to encroach upon the same. Therefore, the 2nd defendant and his son have given a complaint to Kuthalam Police Station. He has also submitted that his possession and enjoyment of the property for over 12 years is known to others. While that be so, the contention that on 22.07.2000, he had unlawfully trespassed into the property is not correct. For the abovesaid reasons, he has prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. On the above pleadings, the trial Court fr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document