Devaki v. Manickam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved on Delivered on
08.11.2019 19.11.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
S.A.No. 52 of 2014
1.Devaki
2.Subramani @ Mani
3.Chinnaraji ...Appellants/ Appellants/
Defendants
Vs.
Manickam ...Respondent/ Respondent/Plaintiff
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of
Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.
15 of 2011 dated 31.01.2012 on the file of the Sub-Ordinate
Judge, Dharmapuri confirming the judgment and decree made in
O.S.No. 90 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-
Judicial Magistrate, Pennagaram dated 30.11.2010.
For Appellants : Mr.M.Selvam
For Respondent :Mr.S.V.Jayaraman, Senior Counsel
for Mr.V.Chinnasami
J U D G M E N T

The defendants in O.S.No. 90 of 2000 have come up with this second appeal challenging the decree for permanent injunction granted against them concurrently by the Courts below. The said suit was filed by the sole respondent herein seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants/appellants from interfering with his possession of the property.

1. According to the plaintiff, the suit properties belonged to one Govindasamy, who died in the year 1985 leaving a Will dated 17.03.1984 in and by which he had bequeathed the suit properties to his wife Pottiammal @ Kanniammal. The brother of the plaintiff, Poovasi entered into sale agreement with Pottiammal @ Kanniammal on 27.08.1987. Subsequently, the said

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

Pottiammal @ Kanniammal along with plaintiff’s brother Poovasi sold the property to the plaintiff under a sale deed dated 27.02.1997. According to the plaintiff, he has been in continuous possession and enjoyment of the property right from the date of the purchase. Since the defendants attempted to interfere with his possession of the suit property, the plaintiff had filed a suit in O.S.No.145 of 1997 seeking a declaration of his title and consequent permanent injunction. The said suit came to be decreed on 19.01.1998. Since the first defendant attempted to interfere with his possession, despite the decree for injunction, the plaintiff had filed execution petition in E.P.No.32 of 1999 for arresting the first defendant. Pursuant to an order made in the said Execution Petition, the first defendant was arrested and produced in Court. She was let off after execution of an undertaking on 13.10.2000. Despite the said decree, the defendants have been indulging in acts of trespass by removing the ridges, boundary stones etc., and had continued their attempts to occupy the suit property. Therefore, the plaintiff was forced to file a second suit for permanent injunction on the basis of the cause of action that arose on 10.12.2000.