The court ruled that without contesting the validity of the settlement deed, plaintiffs could not claim rights over the property, affirming the injunction on one property while vacating it on another.

JUDGMENT :

(S. SOUNTHAR, J.)

The appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by the trial Court granting temporary injunction in favour of the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs restraining the appellants/defendants 6 and 7 and defendants 1 to 5 who are arrayed as Respondents 3 to 7 herein from alienating the subject matter of the suit property pending suit.

2. The respondents 1 and 2 filed a suit for partition seeking partition of their 1/6^th share in the suit property and for injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 7 from alienating the subject matter of the suit property. According to the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs, they are the wife and minor son of the deceased Muthukrishnan who is the son of the first defendant in the suit. The defendants 2, 6 and 7 are other sons of first defendant. The defendants 3 to 5 are legal representatives of another deceased son of first defendant. It was claimed by the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs that the suit properties were joint family properties and they have got 1/6^th share in the suit property along with defendants 1 to 7. It was also stated by the plaintiffs that the suit property was purchased by the wife of first defendant namely Vijaya Lakshmi under a registered sale deeds dated 25.11.1987 and 13.01.1993. It was also stated that said Vijaya Lakshmi was an absolute owner and was in possessions of the suit properties. It was also stated that the first plaintiff got married to Muthukrishnan, son of the first defendant on 18.11.2004 and he passed away on 29.12.2016. It was also stated that the suit properties were enjoyed as joint family properties by the plaintiff along with defendants 1 to 7 and without the knowledge of the plaintiffs, above said Vijaya Lakshmi executed a registered settlement deed dated 19.01.2018 settling item 2 of the schedule mentioned property in favour of defendants 6 and 7. The defendants 6 and 7 on the strength of the settlement deed, executed a registered general power deed dated 19.01.2018 in favour of defendants 8 and 9 regarding item 2 of the schedule mentioned property. After acquiring knowledge about the execution of invalid settlement deed and the General Power of Attorney deed referred above, the plaintiffs have filed the present suit seeking partition of 1/6^th share.

3. Pending the suit an interlocutory application was filed by the respondents 1 and 2/plaintiffs seeking temporary injunction restraining the defendants including the appellants from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiffs till the disposal of the suit. The plaintiffs also prayed for injunction against alienation.

4. The said application was contested by the defendants 1 to 7 including the appellants on the ground that the suit properties were separate properties of Vijaya Lakshmi and hence she was entitled to execute settlement deed in favour of the appellants/defendants 6 and 7. It was also pleaded that the first plaintiff quarrelled with her husband Muthukrishnan and left the matrimonial home in the year 2011 and thereafter she never visited her husband and her mother-in-law at any point of time. It was also pleaded that as the owners of the item 2 of the property, the appellants are entitled to deal with the same.

5. The Trial Court after enquiry granted an order of injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 7 including the appellants from alienating the suit properties pending disposal of the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been filed.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that th