IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 30.03.2022

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH

SECOND APPEAL NO.971 OF 2014

AND

MP NO.1 OF 2014

Kaliammal (died)

1. M.V.Subramaniam

2. V.Karuppusamy

3. Pongiya Gounder

... Appellants

Vs.

Saradhamani

... Respondent

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree 17.04.2014

made in A.S.No.55 of 2011 on the file of the learned Sub Court,

Bhavani confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2011 made

in O.S.No.262 of 2009 on the file of the learned Principal

District Munsif Court, Bhavani.

For Appellants

:

Mr.N.Manokaran

For Respondent

:

Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy,

Senior Counsel

for M/s.S.Kaithamalai Kumaran

JUDGMENT

The defendants 2 to 4 are the appellants in the Second

Appeal.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit seeking for the

relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from

interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

suit property.

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

3. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit properties

were originally allotted to her father through a Partition Deed

dated 17.04.1967 marked as Ex.A1. The father of the plaintiff

thereafter executed a Settlement Deed dated 21.11.2007 in favour

of the plaintiff and thereby the plaintiff became the absolute

owner of the suit property. The grievance of the plaintiff is

that the defendants attempted to trespass into the suit property

and interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the

plaintiff. Hence the suit came to be filed seeking for the

relief of permanent injunction.

4. The second defendant filed a written statement. On

carefully reading the written statement, it is seen that the

second defendant has basically questioned the very right of the

plaintiff in the suit property and according to the defendant,

no title was conferred on the plaintiff since the plaintiff and

her father were in loggerheads. That apart, the defendant has

also claimed that he and his family members are entitled to have

mamool right of cart track through the suit property. It has

been further pleaded that the plaintiff is not in possession and

enjoyment of the suit property and there is no question of the

defendants interfering with the same. Accordingly, the

defendants sought for the dismissal of the suit.

5. Both the Courts below on considering the facts and

circumstances of the case and after examining the oral and

documentary evidence, concurrently held in favour of the

plaintiff and decreed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the

defendants have filed the Second Appeal.

6. Heard Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants and Mr.A.K.Kumarasamy, learned Senior Counsel

appearing for M/s.Kaithamalai Kumaran, for the respondent. This

Court carefully considered the materials available on record and

the findings of both the Courts below.

7. It is clear from the materials available on record that

the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property. Even though,

the defendants made a faint attempt to question the right and

title of the plaintiff over the property, they were not able to

make any inroads and establish their defence and in any case,

the defendants are rank third parties insofar as the suit

property is concerned. Both the Courts below on analysing the

oral and documentary evidence came to a categorical conclusion

that the plaintiff is the owner of the suit property and hence

the defendants do not have any right to interfere with the

peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff in the suit

property.

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

8. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that

both the Courts failed to appreciate that the defendants were

using the cart track over the property belonging to the

plaintiff as their only access to