IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 16.12.2015

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

Second Appeal No.7 of 2014 and

M.P.No.1 of 2014

1.Y.S.Kothandaraman

2.Y.K.Gurunathan

3.Y.K.Sankaran

4.Rama

.. Appellants/Defendant

vs.

S.Suganthi

.. Respondent/Plaintiff

Prayer:- This Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100

C.P.C., to set aside the decree and judgment of the First

Appellate Court dated 21.08.2013 made in A.S.No.69 of 2010 on

the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tambaram reversing

the decree and judgment of the trial Court dated 11.06.2010 made

in O.S.No.1109 of 1997 on the file of the learned Principal

District Judge Munsif, Alandur and allow this appeal.

For Appellants

:

Mr.K.N.Nataraaj

For Respondent

:

Mr.S.Balasubramanian

JUDGMENT

The defendants in O.S.No.1109 of 1997 on the file of the

learned Principal District Munsif, Alandur, Chennai are the

appellants herein. The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit.

The said suit was originally filed by the plaintiff against the

first defendant for permanent inunction to restrain him from in

any manner interfering with her peaceful possession and

enjoyment of the suit property. During the pendency of the

suit, the first defendant died and therefore, the defendants 2

to 4 were brought on record as his legal representatives. The

trial Court by decree and judgment dated 11.06.2010, dismissed

the suit. As against the same, the plaintiff filed an appeal in

A.S.No.69 of 2010 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge,

Tambaram, Chennai. By decree and judgment dated 21.08.2013, the

First Appellate Court allowed the appeal, set aside the decree

and judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit as prayed

for. As against the same, the defendants are before this Court

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

with this second appeal.

2.The case of the plaintiff in brief is as follows:-

The suit property is plot No.39 comprised in S.Nos.524,

525, 526 and 527 in Mumorthy Nagar, No.158, Zamin Pallavaram,

Saidapet Taluk, Chengalpet District. One Mr.Venkatarama Iyer

was the owner of the entire extent of the land before it was

plotted out. He was given power of attorney to one Mr.Shanmugam

to plot out the property and to sell the same. Accordingly, a

lay out was formed, on the above lands mentioned in the survey

numbers, in which, according to the plaintiff, she purchased

Plot No.39. According to the further case of the plaintiff, the

first defendant purchased Plot Nos.38 & 39 under Ex.B.1 in the

name of his wife. But according to the plaintiff, the first

defendant never entered into possession of the Plot No.39. She

was in possession of the suit property all along. It is her

further case that she has constructed a building on the suit

property and which has been assessed to house tax by the local

body.

3.The first defendant in his written statement, contended

that, he has purchased Plot Nos.38 & 39 and from the date of

purchase, he was in possession and enjoyment of the same. It is

further stated that the plaintiff, occupied a portion of the

suit property and when she was asked to vacate, she obtained an

agreement from the first defendant, by force, on 17.07.1985, by

playing fraud upon him. It is further stated that though, the

plaintiff had put up a construction in a portion of the suit

property, she has got no title for the suit property. The first

defendant filed yet another suit for recovery of possession of

the said occupied portion from the plaintiff.

4.Based on the above pleadings, the trial Court framed

appropriate issues. On the side of the plaintiff, three

witnesses were examined and twenty documents were exhibited. On

the side of the defendants, one witness was examined and three

documents were exhibited.

5.Having considered all the above, the trial Court

dismissed the suit which was reversed by the First Appellate

Court. Tha