JUDGEMENT

The un-successful plaintiff before both the Courts below is the appellant before this Court.

2. The parties are referred in the same rank and array as before the trial Court.

3. The second appeal arises against the judgment and decree in O.S.No.11487 of 2009 on the file of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, which was confirmed by the judgment decree in A.S.No.54 of 2019 by the XVII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai Plaintiff's case:

(i) It is the case of the plaintiff that the suit schedule property belonged to her grand father one Sundaravelu. Sundaravelu died intestate and his property had devolved upon his wife Govindammal and Children, namely, Gemburani, S.Janakiraman, S.Vivekanandan, S.Sakunthala, Logidesan and Sarojini. The plaintiff is the daughter of S.Janakiraman, who died in the year 1962, leaving behind her as his only surviving legal heir. The plaintiff would submit that her grand mother Govindammal and the daughters of Sundaravelu had executed a Release Deed in favour of Vivekanandan and Logidasan, the sons of Sundaravelu under a registered document bearing No.1234 of 1968 on the file of the Sub Registrar Office, Periamet. Thereafter, the said Vivekanandan, Logidasan, Govindammal and the plaintiff had executed a Mortgage Deed in respect of the said property (A schedule property) in favour of one Alamelu Ammal through a registered document of the same year.

(ii) It is the case of the plaintiff that after the demise of her father, she was living with her paternal uncle, Vivekanandan and Logidasan. While in their care and custody, the plaintiff had been coerced into executing a document, which was said to be a security for a loan. Believing the above statement, she had affixed her signature to the said Deed. The said document has been obtained by fraud and deceit on the plaintiff. Pursuant to this fraudulent document, the plaintiff came to learn that there were several other transactions that had taken place in respect of the suit schedule property and one of this was sale executed by her paternal grandmother and paternal uncle, Vivekanandan in favour of other paternal uncle Logidasan on 04.12.1985. She would further contend that these documents would go to show that the said Logidasan had only a limited right to 'A' schedule property. Govindammal died on 09.03.1987 and the said Vivekanandan died as a bachelor in the year 1980. Thereafter, Logidasan also passed away. It is the case of the plaintiff that the said Govindammal and Vivekanandan had not executed any document in respect of their share in 'A'

schedule mentioned property in favour of any person.

(iii) In the mean while, the plaintiff came to learn that the defendants were taking emergent steps to sell the suit schedule property. Immediately, she issued a telegraphic notice calling upon them not to alienate the 'A' schedule property. The plaintiff had also filed a suit for bare injunction in O.S.No.2189 of 2005 on the file of the XIII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. The suit was decreed by a judgment dated

23.03.2007. There is no appeal against the said judgment.

(iv) Once again when the plaintiff came to learn that the defendants were attempting to demolish the superstructure, she had filed O.S.No.4263 of 2007 on the file of the VII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing the existing building and putting up a new construction. This suit was also decreed and there is no appeal against the same.

(v) The plaintiff would submit that the deceased Logidasan had a

1/3rd share in the landed property of 'A' schedule and the remaining extent belonged to late Vivekanandan and late Govindammal. The plaintiff has a 1/2 share in the remaining 2/3rd share, since she being the only child of Janaki Raman. Despite request to partition the suit, the plaintiff has not come forward to partition the same. Therefore, the plaintiff has filed the suit.

Defendants' case:

4.