1. This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.75 of 2014 dated 26.06.2016 on the file of the Sub Court at Namakkal in reversing the judgment and decree and decree in counter claim made in O.S.No.23 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court at Tiruchengode dated 08.06.2011.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants and counter claimants in O.S.No.23 of 2010 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruchengode. The appellant succeeded before the Trial Court but lost in the First Appellate Court. The appellant filed the said suit originally for permanent injunction restraining the respondents from interfering with her peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The respondents, in the written statement, denied the title of the appellant. The appellant filed petition to amend the plaint to include the relief of declaration of her title.

2(a) According to the appellant, one Marappan son of Muthusamy Gounder bequeathed the suit property to the husband of the appellant by Will dated 07.11.2000. After the death of said Marappan and his wife Marayee, the appellant's husband became the owner of the suit property and took the possession of the same. The appellant's husband settled the property by deed of settlement dated 25.01.2005 on the appellant. The appellant rented out the suit property to one Devaraj and Elango and his enjoying the property. Apart from the appellant, nobody else has right and title over the suit property. The appellant is paying property tax and electricity charges for the suit property. On 19.10.2005, the appellant obtained plan approval for renovation work in the suit property. There is enmity between the respondents and appellant's husband. On 04.06.2002, the respondents filed O.S.No.66 of 2002 on the file of District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi for permanent injunction against the husband of the appellant. The said suit was dismissed by judgment and decree dated 01.08.2003 and ended in favour of the appellant's husband. The respondents were illegally trying to evict the appellant from the suit property by threat and force. On 05.06.2007, the respondents, with the help of rowdy elements, tried to interfere with the appellant's possessing and enjoyment of the suit property. The appellant, with the help of general public prevented the same. If the respondents interfere with the suit property, the appellant would be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Based on the above averments, the appellant filed the suit for the reliefs stated above.

3. The respondents filed written statement denying all the averments made in the plaint and contended that the settlement deed executed by the appellant's husband dated 25.01.2005 is a fraudulent one and it is false. The appellant's husband has no right to settle the suit property on the appellant. The appellant has no legal right, possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The appellant's husband is a member of political party and using the political influence and due to money and muscle power, to grab the property from the respondents, have created property tax receipts, changed patta, electricity service connection and obtained electricity receipts. In the suit O.S.No.66 of 2002, the respondents did not claim any declaration and right over the suit property. For the property in Door No.5/143 and 5/144, the property tax is assessed in favour of the first respondent for the year 2001-2002. The dismissal of the suit O.S.No.66 of 2002 would not be a resjudicata for the claim of respondents in the present suit.

3(a) The appellant, by fraudulent settlement deed and with the help of police have prevented the respondents from enjoying the property from the year 2005. The documents filed by the appellant is a fraudulent one. The suit property was purchased by one Muthusamy from Shanmuga Sundaram s/o Palaniappa Gounder by deed of sale dated 13.09.1989.