JUDGMENT

The appellant herein filed a suit for injunction restraining the respondents from taking forcible possession of the suit property from the plaintiff. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed an appeal and the first Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court. Therefore, the appellant was constrained to approach this Court by way of Second Appeal.

2. According to the appellant, the suit property originally belonged to her husband Bhoothalingam. On 31.03.1992, the said Bhoothalingam had executed a sale deed in favour of the appellant and from that date onwards, she was in possession and enjoyment of the suit property, as absolute owner by paying property tax to the Nagercoil Municipality. It was further averred that the relationship between the appellant and her husband Bhoothalingam was strained and they got separated. Subsequently, the husband of the appellant stood as guarantor and offered the suit property as a security to the respondent's Bank. It was also averred that subsequent to sale by Bhoothalingam in favour of the appellant, he had no authority to offer the suit property as security to respondent Bank. It was further averred that on 30.10.2004, the officers of the respondent Bank visited the suit property and informed the appellant that they propose to take possession of the suit property on 04.11.2004 in connection with the loan obtained by one Krishnan. In these circumstances, the appellant herein filed a present suit for injunction as prayed for.

3. The respondent Bank filed a written statement denying the averment of the appellant that she got separated from her husband. It was specifically averred that the sale deed allegedly executed by Bhoothalingam in favour of the appellant was not a valid document. It was also averred that the respondent Bank had taken proceedings under SURFAESI Act. Under the provision of the Act, the respondent Bank is entitled to take possession of the suit property, since it was offered as security for loan availed by friend of Bhoothalingam. The respondent also had taken a stand that the suit filed by the appellant was barred under SURFAESI Act.

4. The trial Court on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed an appeal in A.S.No.72 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Nagercoil. The first Appellate Court affirmed the findings of the trial Court.

Aggrieved by the same, the appellant is before this Court.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after marriage of the appellant with Bhoothalingam, there was a strained relationship between the appellant and her husband Bhoothalingam, who sold away all the jewels of the appellant and led a wavered life. Therefore, as per the instructions of the Mediator, an agreement was entered into. As per the terms of family settlement, Bhoothalingam had executed the sale deed, in respect of the suit property in favour of the appellant, to compensate the sale of jewels of the appellant by said Bhoothalingam. Subsequent to the execution of the sale deed on 31.03.1992, mutation had taken place in favour of the appellant and the appellant had been enjoyed the suit property by paying property tax to the Nagercoil Municipality. In such circumstances, the husband has no right to offer the plaint schedule property as security to the respondent Bank. Assailing the findings rendered by the Courts below, the learned counsel submitted that the Courts below without appreciating the evidence of PW1 and PW2 in a proper perspective came to the conclusion that the sale deed executed by husband in favour of the appellant was not at all acted upon.

Therefore, the said findings is liable to set aside.

6.In order to prove the relationship between the appellant and the Bhoothalingam got strained, the appellant was examined as PW1 and her father was examined as PW2. The appellant has not examined any in