IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18-11-2025 CORAM THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA and MP.NO.1 of 2012

1 R.Mallika W/o Venkatesh

2 Minor V.Ashika D/o Venkatesh Rep By Mother And Next friend Mr.S.R.Mallika Both Are Residing At No.103 Balaji Ngr,Avarampalayam Rd., Coimbatore. ... Appellants.

Vs.

1 Andal W/o Sivaraman

2 S.Anand S/o Sivaraman Both Are Residing At No.103 Balaji Ngr Avarampalayam Rd, Coimbatore. .... Respondents.

Prayer:

This second appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. Against the judgment and decree in A.S.No. 10 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore reversing the judgement and decree dated 09.12.2010 passed in OS.No.1123 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Munsif of Coimbatore.

For Appellant(s): Mr.K.Rajkumar for Mr.R.Bharathkumar For Respondent(s): Mr.T.Ganesan

JUDGMENT

The appellant is the plaintiff. The suit has been filed for the relief of permanent injunction. The trial court has decreed the suit, and on the first appeal preferred by the defendant, the first appellate Court has set aside the judgement and decree of the trial court and allowed the first appeal. Aggrieved that the second appeal has been preferred.

2. The short facts pleaded by the plaintiff:

The second plaintiff is the daughter of the first plaintiff. The 1st defendant is the mother-in-law of the 1st plaintiff. The 2nd defendant is the brother-in-law of the 1st plaintiff. The suit property belongs to the grandfather (Sivaraman) of the 2nd plaintiff, who died on 2.11.1998. The 1st plaintiff's husband, Venkatesh, is one of the legal heirs for his father, Sivaraman. After marrying the 1st plaintiff and giving birth to the 2nd plaintiff on 4.1.2000, the plaintiff’s husband was found missing from 10.2.2008. The 2nd defendant has given a police complaint by the plaintiff’s husband that cannot be traced out. The plaintiffs are living in the suit property, and they have the right over the suit property. By taking advantage of the absence of the 1st plaintiff's husband, the defendants are trying to drive away the plaintiff from the suit property, and hence, they have filed a suit for permanent injunction.

3. The written statement filed by the 1st defendant and adopted by the 2nd defendant is, in brief, as under:

The facts about the relationship between the parties are admitted. And the fact that the suit property belonged to the 1st defendant’s husband, Sivaraman, is also not denied. The plaintiffs are not residing in the suit property, and the defendant has rented out the ground floor in three portions, and the rent was being used to repay the loan obtained by the deceased husband of the 1st defendant. The plaintiffs are actually residing in Gandhi Nagar in a rented building. The 1st plaintiff and her parents had filed a suit for partition in respect of the suit properties, and hence, the 1st defendant had issued a legal notice on

30.4.2008. The plaintiff’s husband has his 1/4 share in the suit property, and the defendants are ready to give that share to the plaintiffs. As the suit has been filed without any cause of action, it is liable to be dismissed.

4. Based on the above pleadings, the trial court has framed the following issues:

‘1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the relief of permanent injunction? 2. To what other relief?

Additional issues:

1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the right of residence in the suit property?”

5. During the course of the trial, on the side of the plaintiff, one witness has been examined as PW.1, and Ex.A1 to A3 were marked. On the side of the defendant, one witness has been examined as DW.1, and Ex.B1 to B8 were marked.

6. After the conclusion of the trial and considering the evidence available on record, the trial court has decreed the suit as prayed, and on the first appeal preferred by the defendant, the first appellant court allowed the appeal by reversing the judgement of the trial court. Aggrieved that the second appeal has been preferred. The seco