Back
2019 Supreme(Mad) 2885
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R.PONGIAPPAN, J.
S.R.Rengan – Appellant
Vs.
S.R.Alamelu Ammal (Died) – Respondent
S.A.Nos.744 and 745 of 1998
Decided on : 06-08-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan
For the Respondents: Mr.V.Prabhu, Mr.M.P.Senthil, Mr.M.P.Senthil, Adv
Headnote:
Constitution Of India, 1950 – Offence of harassment - Defendant in deed as their Power-Agent - Similarly above said and two others filed suit in file of Subordinate Judge Tricky seeking relief of permanent injunction restraining defendants from interfering with plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of suit schedule properties in which above said is first defendant – Since in both suits party to proceedings and property in dispute are one and same Principal Subordinate Judge Tricky tried both suits simultaneously and by common Judgment and decree dismissed suit and granted decree in favor of plaintiffs - Against said findings aggrieved party in respective suits preferred appeal in before Additional District Judge – Held, Other hand no other independent witnesses have been examined on side of said circumstances probablizes case plaintiff in respect to letters addressed by counsel relied on judgment of our Honble Apex Court in case and others and another reported wherein in paragraph - Tone and tenor of letter authored by First Respondent discloses that he too was not very keen to grab all three properties simply because those properties were purchased in his name - He went to extent of stating that he was not responsible for purchasing all three house properties in his name - He went one step further and stated that he did not want to possess all three properties all time to come - If such clear cut mindset was expressed by First Respondent though it was futile on his part to have come forward with any other story after Suit came to be filed by Plaintiffs – Appeal dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Both the second appeals are preferred against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.Nos.264 and 265 of 1997 on the file of the learned II-Additional District Judge, Trichy.
2. The respondent in S.A.No.745 of 1998, one S.R.Alamelu Ammal filed a suit in O.S.No.751 of 1990, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Trichy, seeking the relief of recovery of possession and permanent injunction, as against one S.R.Rengan, who is the appellant in S.A.No.744 of 1998.
3. Similarly, the above said S.R.Rengan and two others filed a suit in O.S.No.400 of 1991, on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Trichy, seeking the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the plaintiffs' peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule properties, in which the above said S.R.Alamelu Ammal is the first defendant.
4. Since, in both the suits, party to the proceedings and the property in dispute are one and the same, the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Trichy, tried the both suits simultaneously and by a common Judgment and decree, dated 18.01.1997, dismissed the suit in O.S.No.751 of 1990 and granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs in O.S.No.400 of 1991. Against the said findings, the aggrieved party in the respective suits preferred the appeal in A.S.Nos.264 of 1997 and 265 of 1997, before the learned II-Additional District Judge, Trichy.
5. By Judgment and Decree, dated 27.02.1998, the learned II-Additional District Judge, Trichy, set aside the judgment rendered by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Trichy, and allowed the both appeals. Ultimately, decree was granted in both the appeals with respective costs. Feeling aggrieved over the same, the aggrieved party is before this Court with these present second appeals.
6. Since the issue pertaining to these two appeals are one and the same, this Court has also decided to pronounce a common judgment in these two appeals.
7. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as, as described before the Courts below.
S.A.No.744 of 1998:
8. The averments made in the plaint in O.S.No.400 of 1991, in brief, are as follows:
The plaintiffs are the absolute owners of the suit properties, vide a registered partition deed, dated 19.09.1986. The said partition deed is executed between the family members of the plaintiffs, viz., S.R.Venkataraman-the brother of the first plaintiff and one S.V.Srinivasan – son of the said S.R.Venkataraman. The first plaintiff was represented in the registered deed by the said S.R.Venkataraman as his Power-Agent and the plaintiffs 2 and 3 were represented by the first defendant in the said deed as their Power-Agent. It appears that after the execution of the registered partition deed, the said S.R.Venkataraman, representing himself as the Power-Agent of the first plaintiff and the first defendant representing herself as the Power-Agent of the plaintiffs 2 and 3, have now been attempting to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs in respect to the suit properties and are attempting to put up a massive construction in the said suit properties. The defendants are strangers to the suit and the aforesaid S.V.Srinivasan have executed a registered partition cancellation deed. It is submitted that this deed has no existence in the eye of law. Since the suit properties are the joint family properties of the plaintiffs and the defendants, the partition deed executed among them has came into existence. Right from the time of aforesaid partition, the plaintiffs are in the possession of the suit properties with their own rights. It appears that the first defendant in collusion with the defendants 2 and 3, have now been attempting to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs in respect to the suit schedule properties. The attempt on the part of the defendants is audacious and the same can never be allowed to continue. Hence the suit.
9. The averments made in the written statement filed by the first defendant ar
