1

IN THE COURT OF THE DISTRICT MUNSIF, OMALUR.

SALEM DISTRICT.
PRESENT: [Link], B.A., M.L.,
District Munsif, Omalur.
On Wednesday, the 02nd day of March 2022
[Link]. 317/2005
(CNR No.TNSA0F0000172005)

1. Thangamani
2. Valarmathi * ...Plaintiffs

*Amended as per order in I.A.726/2017 dated 21.09.2017

//Vs//

*1. Iyyandurai
2. Chinnasamy * ...Defendants

*Amended as per order in I.A.37/2018 dated 06.03.2018

This suit came before me on 02.03.2022 for final hearing in the

presence of the learned advocate [Link] for Plaintiffs, and
of [Link], advocate for D1 and of
[Link], advocate for D2 and upon perused the records,
heard the arguments and considered the same, this court delivered the
following:
JUDGMENT
1. Suit for granting permanent injunction restraining the Defendants and their
men from in any way interfering with the Plaintiffs' peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the suit property and awarding the cost of the suit.

2. The brief averments of the plaint is as follows:

The suit property and other properties originally belonged to

father of 2nd plaintiff i.e., husband of the 1st plaintiff Chinnasamy ancestrally and
 2

self acquisition. As a owner of the suit property, the said Chinnasamy has
executed the sale deed on 28.10.2005 for valuable consideration of Rs.80,000/-.
Having purchased, the plaintiff took possession and they are enjoying the same.
They have applied for patta transfer etc., which are under process, as the purchase
is only in last month.

The defendant is none other than the son of the said Chinnasamy
through another wife Chinnaponnu. The said Chinnasamy has also given another
property to the defendant. However, the defendant thought to snatch away the
entire property of the said Chinnasamy and more so, after the sale deed is
executed in favour of the plaintiffs by his another, he got valid and determined to
disturb the possession and enjoyment of the suit property. As part of his attempt
on 14.11.2005, the defendant along with some elements came to the suit
property and trespass into the same. The suit arose on 28.10.2005 the date of
purchase, on 14.11.2005, when the defendants attempted to trespass into the suit
property at Pappambadi village. Hence this suit for permanent injunction.

3. The brief averment of the written statement filed by the Defendant is as

follows:-

It is utterly false to say that the suit property and other properties
originally belonged to father of 2nd plaintiff i.e., husband of the 1st plaintiff
Chinnasamy ancestrally and self acquisition. Because the said Chinnasamy i.e., the
father of the defendant has no self acquired property at all. It is absolutely false to
say owner of the suit property, the said Chinnasamy has executed the sale deed on
28.10.2005 for valuable consideration of Rs.80,000/- and having purchased the
plaintiffs took possession and they are enjoying the same and they have applied for
patta transfer etc., which are under process. On the other hand the suit property is the
absolute property of the defendant as per the registered settlement deed 17.02.1988
executed in favour of him by his father Chinnasamy as per the family partition in the
 3

first week of February 1988. So the father of the defendant has no right at all to
execute any sale deed as alleged in the plaint in favour of the plaintiffs and the
alleged sale deed is false and created one and it will not bind the defendant in any
way.

The defendant's father Chinnasamy has got three wives. The defendant is
the only son through his first wife Chinnaponnu. After the demise of the defendant's
mother the 1st defendant has married one Chinnathayee who is his maternal uncle's
daughter. After some time the 1st defendant has divorced her. Subsequently the 1st
defendant to marry the 1st plaintiff herein as his third wife. Since the 1 st defendant is
going on marriage one after another, to safeguard the interest of the defendant at the
instance of the elders in the village an family partition was effected in the first week
of February 1988 and the defendant was allotted 2.30 acres of land and his father was
allotted 0.52 acres of land. As per that family partition a settlement deed was
executed in favour of the defendant for the 1st defendant share by his father on
17.02.1988.

From the date of family partition the defendant alone is in possession

and enjoyment of the 1st defendant of 2.30 acres of land till today and his father is in
possession and enjoyment of his share of 52 cents of land. As per the family partition
and the settlement deed all the revenue records have been changed in the name of the
defendant for the above said 2.30 acres of land and all along the defendant alone is
paying kist, house tax and other taxes for his property. The 1 st defendant father has
got patta for his property of 52 cents. The family partition is true one and the
settlement deed is true, valid and acted upon. Only after the above said settlement
deed the defendant's father has married the 1st plaintiff herein and subsequently the 2nd
plaintiff was born.

After that for all these years the defendant has improved his lands very
much by spending huge amount. The 1st defendant has dug a bore well, deepen the
 4

well, got Electric Service Connection, installed motor pump set and also extended the
dwelling house. All these facts of are known to one and all in the village including the
plaintiffs and the father of the defendant Chinnasamy. For quiet some time at the
instigation of the 1st plaintiff, the defendant's father wants to give some more property
to the 2nd plaintiff from the defendant's property, for which the defendant is not
willing. Aggrieved by that the father of the defendant the said Chinnasamy canceled
the settlement deed in favour of the defendant dated 17.02.1988 and the 1 st defendant
has executed the alleged sale deed in favour of the plaintiffs. The 1 st defendant has no
right to cancel the settlement deed on his own that too after such a long period. Now
the defendant's father is dancing to the tunes of the 1 st plaintiff. So the suit property is
the absolute property of the defendant and the defendant alone is the owner of the
same. Even though the 1st plaintiff and his husband Chinnasamy is very much aware
about all these facts, purposely the plaintiffs have suppressed all those vital facts
before this Hon'ble Court. The decree for permanent injunction is an discretionary
relief. For getting an discretionary relief from this Hon'ble Court, the person seeking
the relief must not suppress or conceal any thing before this Hon'ble court, which is
against law. So the plaintiffs are absolutely not entitled to seek any discretionary
relief of permanent injunction from the Hon'ble Court for suppression of facts.

4. The brief averment of the additional written statement filed by the 1 st

Defendant is as follows:
The suit unsustainable in law and on facts. The suit is very much bad for
misjoinder of unnecessary party. The suit is for permanent injunction against the
defendant and written statement was filed in March 2006 and there is absolutely there
is no allegation in the written statement that the 2 nd defendant is a necessary party.
After that for the last several years the suit was posted several times for trial and the
plaintiffs here kept quiet and now impleaded him, since they have no case in the suit
to proceed with. Even now there is no specific allegations what purpose the 2 nd
defendant was impleaded in the suit and also there is no specific prayer against the 2 nd
defendant. So the suit is very much bad for misjoinder of unnecessary part and liable
 5

to be dismissed on that ground also.

The defendant is the true owner of the suit property as per the family
partition in January 1988 between this defendant and his father the 2 nd defendants and
this defendant's share was allotted to him as per the settlement deed dated 17.02.1988
and only after that settlement deed the 2nd defendant has married the 1st plaintiff as his
3rd wife. At the time of the above said partition and execution of the settlement deed,
this defendant alone is the only legal heir for the 2 nd defendant Chinnasamy. From
that this defendant alone is in possession of his properties, including the suit
properties and all the revenue records stands in his name on the other hand the sale
deed dated 28.10.2005 in favour of the plaintiffs is false and created one and the
plaintiffs are not at all having any title or possession or enjoyment over the suit
property. Without the prayer of declaration this suit is not maintainable.

It is utterly false to say that when the plaintiffs are preparing for trial,
they have gone through the written statement filed by the 1 st defendant wherein he
has alleged that the 1st plaintiff's husband had executed settlement deed in his favour
and in fact, the said Chinnasamy is a drunkard and by utilizing his weakness the 1 st
defendant has got a false and fraudulent document in his favour and on coming to
know the same the said Chinnasamy had cancelled the alleged settlement deed and
after that the defendant has sold the suit property which is a part of the properties
belong to him, to the plaintiffs for valid consideration. It is false to say that on and
from the date of purchase the plaintiffs are alone in possession and enjoyment of the
property as absolute owners and exercising all acts of ownership in it. The plaintiffs
know about the written statement of this defendant in the year 2006 itself. Since they
have no case at all in the suit, they have let off the suit to be dismissed for default
twice. The 2nd defendant is not a drunkard as alleged and the settlement deed in
favour of this defendant is before the marriage of the 1 st plaintiff with the 2nd
defendant. So the said settlement deed is very much acted upon by all means and this
defendant alone is in possession and enjoyment of the settled properties which
 6

included the suit property also. Further there is absolutely no condition is stated in the
settlement deed infavour of this defendant. So the 2nd defendant have no right to
cancel the settlement deed, that too unilaterally and so the cancellation of settlement
deed and the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff are invalid documents created by the
2nd defendant at the instigation of plaintiffs with an sole intention to grab the
properties of this defendant.

This suit nothing but joint venture of the plaintiffs and 2 nd defendant
who are all in one and the same roof. The presence of 2 nd defendant before this
Hon'ble Court at the time of filing impleading petition itself proves the same. The
execution of sale deed by the 2nd defendant in favour of plaintiffs i.e., his wife and
daughter who are having no income on their own itself proves its falseness. The
defendants have instigated the 2nd defendant to settle 47 cents of land from his share
to the 2nd plaintiff after the suit as per the settlement deed 2654/2007 dated
25.07.2007. The 2nd defendant and his daughter i.e., the 2nd plaintiff have sold the
remaining land of the 2nd defendant as per the above said partition in the year of 1988
along with other lands of 2nd defendant's younger brother Periyasamy and his
daughter Valarmathi in favour of one Palanisamy who is none other than the son of
the 2nd defendant's brother the above said Periyasamy as per the said deed 3816/2012
dated 18.07.2012. The plaintiffs have also not stated all the super structures in the suit
property, because the plaintiffs are not in possession and enjoyment of the suit
property. The plaintiffs are not at all in possession and enjoyment of the suit property
at any point of time. Hence this suit has to be dismissed.

5. The brief averment of the written statement filed by the 2 nd Defendant is as

follows:

The suit is false, frivolous, vexatious and unsustainable in law or on

facts. The suit property originally belonged to this defendant by ancestrally and self
acquisition. It is also admitted that this defendant has executed the sale deed on
 7

28.10.2005 for valuable consideration of Rs.80,000/-. It is also admitted that the

plaintiff took possession and they are enjoying the same. It is true that the 1 st
defendant is the son of 2nd defendant through another wife Chinnaponnu. It is also
true that this defendant has also given another property to the 1 st defendant. The
alleged disturbances of the 1st defendant to the plaintiff, the cause of action on
14.11.2005 are all unknown to this defendant.

It is true that this defendant is drunkard and by utilizing his weakness the
1st defendant has got a false and fraudulent document in his favour. It is true on
coming to know the same this defendant had cancelled the alleged settlement deed
and after that the 1st defendant has sold the suit property which is a part of the
properties belong to him, to the plaintiffs for valid consideration.

The defendant submits that the defendant having the habit of consuming
alcohol. About 25 years ago onwards, the 1st defendant has often and often tortured
this defendant to execute a document for the property in his name. But this defendant
has not accepted for the unlawful demands of the 1st defendant. While so, about 27
years ago the 1st defendant has approached the 2nd defendant and asked him to sign in
a document for getting loan by pledging landed property so that the defendant can do
any business by utilizing the loan amount. With the demand, the 1 st defendant has
taken this 2nd defendant to Tharamangalam and in drunken mood of 2 nd defendant, the
1st defendant has cunningly and fraudulently obtained document as settlement deed
for property in his name. On coming to know the false and fraudulent document
obtained by the 1st defendant, the 2nd defendant has cancelled the settlement deed and
has been in possession and enjoyment of the property.

The defendant submits that the 1st defendant has cunningly obtained a
settlement deed in his name by using this defendant's drinking habit. On coming to
know the false document obtained by the 1 st defendant, this 2nd defendant has duly
cancelled the same. Hence the 1st defendant has no right to disturb the plaintiffs'
 8

possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The plaintiffs are the absolute owners
of the suit property by means of registered sale deed dated 28.10.2005. The plaintiffs
are alone in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. After executing the sale
deed, this defendant has lost his right over the suit property. Hence the defendants are
no way connected with the suit property. They have no right to disturb the plaintiffs'
possession and enjoyment in the suit property. Hence this defendant has no objection
in decreeing the suit.

6. Considering the averments in the plaint and in the written statement in the
following issues are framed:-

1. Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of Permanent Injunction as

prayed for?

2. To what other reliefs?

7. Additional Issue framed on 14.06.2018 is as follows:-

1. Whether the suit is maintainable without the prayer of declaration of title

over the suit property?

During the course of trial proceedings, this Court has recorded oral
evidences of PW1-2nd Plaintiff namely Valarmathi, PW2- Subbulakshmi, DW1- 1st
Defendant by name Iyyandurai, DW2- Nallathambi and documentary evidences i.e.,
Ex.A1 was marked on the side of the Plaintiffs, Ex.B1 to Ex.B11 were marked on the
side of the Defendant.

On perusal of records the original copy of Sale Deed in favour of

Plaintiffs dated 28.10.2005 executed by 2nd Defendant marked as Ex.A1. The
certified copy of Sale Deed in favour of Palanisamy dated 18.07.2012 marked as
Ex.B1. The original copy of Settlement Deed dated 17.02.1988 marked as Ex.B2.
The certified copy of Patta No.1728 (2 series) in the name of 1 st Defendant dated
26.12.2007 marked as Ex.B3. The certified copy of Adangal extracts (23 series)
 9

marked as Ex.B4. The original copy of Kist receipts (9 series) marked as Ex.B5. The
original copy of Property tax receipts (14 series) marked as Ex.B6. The original copy
of Electricity consumption charge receipts (15 series) marked as Ex.B7. The original
copy of Electricity Meter card and electricity consumption receipt for [Link].504
marked as Ex.B8. The original copy of Electricity Meter card and electricity
consumption receipt for [Link].504 marked as Ex.B9. The certified copy of
Cancellation of Gift Settlement Deed dated 26.09.2005 marked as Ex.B10. The
certified copy of Gift Settlement Deed in favour of 2nd Plaintiff dated 23.07.2007
marked as Ex.B11.

8. Issues No.1 & 2 and Additional Issue No.1:-

The 2nd Plaintiff Valarmathi has been examined herself as PW1, the
original Sale Deed in favour of Plaintiffs executed by 2 nd Defendant dated 28.10.2005
was marked as Ex.A1.

(i) On the side of Plaintiffs, one Subbulakshmi has been examined

herself as PW2 .

(ii) In contra 1st Defendant by name Iyyandurai, has been examined

himself as DW1. One Nallathambi has been examined as DW2 and no documents
were marked through him.

(iii) During the cross-examination of PW1, the registration copy of Sale

Deed in favour of Palanisamy dated 18.07.2012 was marked as Ex.B1.

(iv) Through the DW1, Ex.B2 to Ex.B11 were marked. The registration
copy of Settlement Deed dated 17.02.1988 were marked as Ex.B2, the
computerized patta No.1728 ( 2 series) in the name of 1 st Defendant dated
26.12.2007 and 10.08.2018 were marked as Ex.B3, the certified copies of Adangal
extracts (23 series) were marked as Ex.B4, the original kist receipts (9 series) were
marked as Ex.B5, the original property tax receipts (14 series) were marked as
 10

Ex.B6, the original Electricity consumption charge receipts (15 series) were
marked as Ex.B7, the original Electricity Meter card and electricity consumption
receipt for [Link].504 were marked as Ex.B8 & B9 respectively, the registration
copy of cancellation of Gift Settlement Deed dated 26.09.2005 was marked as
Ex.B10 and the registration copy of Gift Settlement Deed in favour of 2 nd Plaintiff
dated 23.07.2007 was marked as Ex.B11. The evidence of DW1 is nothing but
total verbatim of averments made in the written statement & additional written
statement.

9. Points for determination:-

The learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that the suit
property originally belonged to father of 2 nd plaintiff i.e., husband of the 1st
plaintiff Chinnasamy ancestrally and self acquisition. As a owner of the suit
property, the said Chinnasamy has executed the sale deed on 28.10.2005 for
valuable consideration of Rs.80,000/-. Having purchased, the plaintiff took
possession and they are enjoying the same. The defendant is the son of the said
Chinnasamy through another wife Chinnaponnu. On 14.11.2005 the defendant
came to the suit property and trespassed into the same. On and from the date of
purchase the plaintiffs are alone in possession and enjoyment of the suit property
as absolute owners and exercising all acts of ownership in it. Hence this suit has to
be decreed.

10. On the The defendant is the true owner of the suit property as
per the family partition in January 1988 between this defendant and his father the
2nd defendants and this defendant's share was allotted to him as per the settlement
deed dated 17.02.1988 and only after that settlement deed the 2 nd defendant has
married the 1st plaintiff as his 3rd wife. At the time of the above said partition and
execution of the settlement deed, this defendant alone is the only legal heir for the
2nd defendant Chinnasamy. From that this defendant alone is in possession of his
 11

properties, including the suit properties and all the revenue records stands in his
name on the other hand the sale deed dated 28.10.2005 in favour of the plaintiffs is
false and created one and the plaintiffs are not at all having any title or possession
or enjoyment over the suit property. Without the prayer of declaration this suit is
not maintainable. The learned counsel for the Defendant would submit that the 2 nd
defendant have no right to cancel the settlement deed, that too unilaterally and so
the cancellation of settlement deed is deemed to be invalid.

11. On considering both sides arguments it is well settled law that

the party who pleads has to prove his/her case. In the instance case, the Plaintiffs
have filed a suit for seeking the relief of granting a permanent injunction as
against the Defendant as claimed above. Thereto, this court observed that under
Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, it defines ''Burden of proof'' which
clearly lays down that whosoever desires any court give judgment as to any legal
right or law dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that
those facts exist. When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact it is
said that the burden of proof lies on that person. Thus, the Evidence Act had
clearly laid down that the burden of proving facts always lies upon the person who
asserts. The plaintiff to prove her possession has not produced any documentary
evidence other than Ex A1.

And from the oral evidences the 2nd plaintiff who is none other
than the sister of 1st defendant during her cross examination deposed that “1-மம
பபரதபவவதப அவரம வபவசவயமம சசயமத வரமம நபலதமதபலம ஆழமதளள கபணற அளமதமத
மபனம இளணபமப சபறமறளமளவரம. எனம தகபமபனவரமம, 1 மம பபரதபவவதபயமம தனபதமதனபயவக
வபவசவயமம சசயமத வரவத ஊரபலம உளமள அளனவரகமகமம சதரபயமம. 1 மம பபரதபவவதப
அனபவபதமத வரமம சசவதமத கறபதமத அவரம சபயரபலம படமடவ உளமளத எனமறவலம சரபதவனம.
அதறமக அவரம வரப சசலதமதப வரகபறவரம. தவவவ சசவதமதபலம ஓடமட வவட உளமளத. அதறமக
வரப 1-மம பபரதபவவதப சபயரபலம உளமளத எனமறவலம எனம தகபமபனவரம சபயரபலம உளமளத. அவரம
தவனம அதறமக சதவளகயமம சசலதமதப வரகபறவரம. எனம தகபமபனவரம சபயரபலம உளமள வரப
 12

இரசவதகளள நவனம மனமனபரதமதவபலமளல. 1.25 ஏகமகரம நபலதமளத எனம தகபமபனவரம 1-மம

பபரதபவவதபகமக கபளரயமவக சகவடதமதளமளவரம. அத எனம தவயவரபனம தபரமணதமதபறமக
மனமப ஏறமபடமடத”.

PW2 deposed that “தவவவ சசவதமத கறபதமத வரவவயம ஆவணஙமகளம

தறமபபவத யவரம சபயரபலம உளமளத எனமறவலம 1-மம பபரதபவவதப சபயரபலம உளமளத. அதறமக
மனமப 2 மம பபரதபவவதப சபயரபலம இரநமதத”.

12. As per the depositions of the plaintiff side both the witness
have themselves admitted that all the revenue records stands in the name of the 1 st
defendant. And the sale deed has been executed by 2 nd defendant in favour of 1 st
defendant before the marriage with the 1st plaintiff who is the 3rd wife of 2nd
defendant. And admitted facts need not to be proved as per Section 58 of Indian
Evidence Act 1872. The Plaintiffs miserably failed to prove their title and lawful
possession over the suit property before the Court of Law. And without declaration
the suit is not maintainable.

13. The 1st defendant has clearly established his case through oral
and documentary evidences. From Ex.B2 to Ex.B11 the all revenue records like
house tax receipts, electricity bills, patta, chitta, adangal stands in the name of the
1st defendant. The unilateral cancellation of settlement deed by the 2 nd defendant
against the 1st defendant is held to be invalid before the eyes of Law.

14. The plaintiffs have miserably failed to establish their case

through proper oral and documentary evidences and thus this suit is dismissed. No
cost.

In the result, in the interest of the justice, the suit is dismissed.

The plaintiffs have miserably failed to establish their case through proper end
documentary evidence. No Cost.
 13

Dictated to stenographer, typed by her directly, corrected and

pronounced by me in the open court, this the 02nd day of March 2022.

Sd-/[Link]
District Munsif,
Omalur.
Plaintiffs' side witnesses:

PW1 - Valarmathi (2nd Plaintiff)

PW2 - Subbulakshmi
Plaintiffs side Exhibits:

Ex.A1 - Sale Deed in favour of Plaintiffs - 28.10.2005 - Original

executed by 2nd Defendant.

Defendants' side Witnesses:

DW.1 - Iyyandurai (2nd Defendant)

DW.2 - Nallathambi

Defendants' side Exhibits:

[Link] Date Particulars Nature Exhibits

01 18.07.2012 Sale Deed in favour of Palanisamy Certified copy Ex.B1
02 17.02.1988 Settlement Deed Original Ex.B2
03 26.12.2007 Patta No.1728 (2 series) in the name Certified copy Ex.B3
of 1st Defendant
04 --- Adangal extracts (23 series) Certified copy Ex.B4
05 --- Kist receipts (9 series) Original Ex.B5
06 --- Property tax receipts (14 series) Original Ex.B6
07 --- Electricity consumption charge Original Ex.B7
receipts (15 series)
08 --- Electricity Meter card and electricity Original Ex.B8
consumption receipt for [Link].504
--- Electricity Meter card and electricity Original Ex.B9
09 consumption receipt for [Link].504
 14

10 26.09.2005 Cancellation of Gift Settlement Deed Certified copy Ex.B9

11 23.07.2007 Gift Settlement Deed in favour of 2 nd Certified copy Ex.B10
Plaintiff

Sd-/[Link]
District Munsif,
Omalur.
15

Draft / Fair Judgment in

O.S. No.317/2005
Date: 02.03.2022
[CNR No.TNSA0F0000172005]